Oasis's Paper 2 Topics & Studies

Cognitive Approach to Formation of PRs

• MATE SELECTION = DIFFICULT due to the COPIOUS AMOUNTS of info to process & consider

• Due to this, we develop COGNITIVE MECHANISMS that help us LESSEN THE WORKLOAD

• One such way: SIMILARITY ATTRACTION MODEL (SAM)

• SAM: Theory that posits — people are attracted to individuals that are SIMILAR TO THEMSELVES

• Another way: the role of SELF ESTEEM (SE)

• HIGHER SE —> attracted to MORE ATTRACTIVE people

• LOWER SE —> attracted to LESS ATTRACTIVE people + MORE RESPONSIVE to people who show interest

---

Studies used:

SIMILARITY ATTRACTION MODEL: Markay & Markay

SELF ESTEEM: Keislar & Baral

---

CAPER:

STRENGTH: PRACTICAL APPLICATION

LIMITATION: ALTERNATIVE THEORY

Cog: Markay & Markay

AIM: to investigate the extent to which SIMILARITY influences MATE SELECTION

TYPE OF RESEARCH: SURVEY

PROCEDURE: UNDERGRAD students. 2 PART Questionnaire. #1 DESCRIBE YOURSELF #2 DESCRIBE YOUR PARTNER. FOLLOW-UP: 106 COUPLES —> identical questionnaire

RESULTS: People WANT PARTNERS who are SIMILAR to themselves. However, Follow-up: THE MOST HARMONIOUS COUPLES have SOME SIMILARITIES, NOT ALL

LINK: Goes to show how people develop cognitive mechanisms to make mate selection more efficient.

STRENGTH: GENERALIZABILITY
LIMITATION: RELIABILITY (from self-report)

Cog: Keislar & Baral

AIM: to investigate the influence of SELF-ESTEEM on ROMANTIC BEHAVIOR

TYPE OF RESEARCH: FIELD EXPERIMENT

PROCEDURE: UNDERGRAD MALES. Fake IQ test. Allocated to 1 of 2 Conditions: SELF-ENHANCING/DIMINISHING. Acquainted with an ATTRACTIVE FEMALE, males behavior = observed

RESULTS: Men in the SELF-ENHANCING condition = more likely to APPROACH the attracted women + be ENGAGED in discussion

LINK: Goes to show how cognitive mechanisms, like self-esteem, can provide frameworks through which we select mates. More specifically, it represents how our understandings of ourselves can serve as guidelines through which we find mates that can make us feel good.

STRENGTH: INTERNAL VALIDITY

LIMITATION: GENERALIZABILITY

Biological Approach to the Formation of PRs

• There are MANY APPROACHES through which we examine the formation of personal relationships

• One of which is through the LENS OF BIOLOGY, specifically the EVOLUTIONARY THEORY

• EVO THEORY: Explores how ATTRACTION MECHANISMS evolved to HELP individuals select mates that can OPTIMIZE SURVIVAL + REPRODUCTION of healthy offspring

• This process is otherwise known as : SEXUAL SELECTION

Sexual selection operates through 2 mechanisms:

1. INTRASEXUAL Selection

Competition within one sex for a mate

2. INTERSEXUAL Selection

The specific characteristics that make an individual more attractive than others

---

Studies used:

• Buss et al.

• Johnston et al.

---

CAPER:

STRENGTH: CREDIBILITY

LIMITATION: REDUCTIONIST (Homo? Asexual? Non-Repro?)

Bio: Buss et al.

AIM: To test 3 evolution-based assumptions: 1. Men want YOUNGER & FERTILE women. 2. Women want men who can PROVIDE. 3. Men value CHASTITY

TYPE OF RESEARCH: SURVEY

PROCEDURE: 10,047 participants - 33 countries. Given a QUESTIONNAIRE with 2 components: 1. BIOGRAPHICAL DATA (e.g., age/age gap/children) 2. RANK 17 characteristics in terms of desirability

RESULTS: Men want YOUNGER & MORE FERTILE WOMEN. Women want OLDER MEN with GOOD FINANCIAL PROSPECTS. No sufficient info to prove chastity claim

LINK: Goes to show how individuals, when it comes to mate selection, choose partners that may better their chance at survival and the reproduction of healthy offspring. Men, should they mate with younger women, have a higher likelihood of producing healthy babies. Women, in the current materialistic state of the world desire older men with the financial resources to support their children.

STRENGTH: GENERALIZABILITY

LIMITATION: CONSTRUCT VALIDITY

Bio: Johnston et al.

AIM: to investigate the influence of a woman’s MENSTRUAL CYCLE on what she deems ATTRACTIVE in a male

TYPE OF RESEARCH: TRUE experiment

PROCEDURE: 42 FEMALE uni students of DIFFERENT STAGES in their menstrual cycle. Given a computer program that presented them with FACES of both men & women. Asked to MANIPULATE faces based on provided prompts. One such prompt: “ATTRACTIVE MALE”

RESULTS: Women who were OVULATING found MASCULINE FEATURES more attractive (e.g., prominent features, sharp jaw line, big noses)

LINK: Supports evolutionary theory as women who are ovulating — the stage at which their bodies are most prepared to conceive and bear a child — have a subconscious desire to mate with men with strong masculine features, which is associated with the ability to protect as well as good health

STRENGTH: CONSTRUCT VALIDITY

LIMITATION: ECOLOGICAL VALIDITY

Sociocultural Approach to the Formation of PRs

• Social psychologists argue that ENVIRONMENTAL and CULTURAL factors can play a role in determining what we deem attractive in a mate

• Environmental: Factors like FAMILIARITY may be particularly relevant

• Reflected in: MERE EXPOSURE EFFECT

MERE EXPOSURE EFFECT:

People develop a PREFERENCE for something simply because they are FAMILIAR with it.

• Cultural VALUES may also play a role.

• Individualistic vs Collectivistic

---

Studies used:

MERE EXPOSURE EFFECT: Moreland & Beach

CULTURAL VALUES: Buss et al.

---

CAPER:

STRENGTH: CREDIBILITY

LIMITATION: ALTERNATIVE THEORY

SoCult: Moreland & Beach

AIM: to investigate if the LENGTH OF TIME SPENT AROUND SOMEONE would influence how we PERCEIVE them

TYPE OF RESEARCHER: FIELD experiment

PROCEDURE: 130 UNDERGRAD students. Allocated to 1 of 4 conditions. Confederates who pretended to be classmates. C1: NO FAMILIARITY C2: 5x C3: 10x C4: 15x. After: QUESTIONNAIRE — RANK confederate on a SERIES OF TRAITS

RESULTS: The more familiar participants were with the confederate, determined by the frequency of exposure to her, the more likely they were to ATTRIBUTE POSITIVE CHARACTERISTICS

LINK: Supports this theory as the increase in familiarity with the confederate made the confederate appear more attractive to the participants

STRENGTH: GENERALIZABILITY

LIMITATION: INTERNAL VALIDITY

SoCult: Buss et al.

AIM: to test 3 evolution-based assumptions: 1. Men want YOUNGER & more FERTILE women. 2. Women want men who CAN PROVIDE 3. Men value CHASTITY

TYPE OF RESEARCH: SURVEY

PROCEDURE: 10,047 participants from 33 countries. Asked to complete 2-part questionnaire. 1. BIOGRAPHICAL DATA (preferred age, age gap, children…) 2. RANK 13 traits in terms of DESIRABILITY

RESULTS: Men wanted YOUNGER women who are fertile. Women want men who show GOOD FINANCIAL PROSPECTS. Chastity not proven. Results varied between cultures. Collectivistic cultures emphasized importance of DOMESTIC INVOLVEMENT, FAMILY ORIENTATION. Individualistic cultures emphasized importance of PERSONALITY and APPEARANCE

LINK: Proves that culture can play a role in determining what individuals find attractive in a partner. More specifically, the different values of respective cultures can place heavier emphases on certain traits.

STRENGTH: GENERALIZABILITY

LIMITATION: CONSTRUCT VALIDITY

Role of Communication

• Communication is the process of EXCHANGING INFORMATION and SELF DISCLOSURE

• It can influence the MAINTENANCE & SATISFACTION of relationships

• There are CERTAIN PATTERNS in the way people communicate that can significantly impact the DYNAMICS of relationships

1. RELATIONSHIP-ENHANCING & DISTRESS-MAINTAINING patterns

Observed patterns in communication that directly influence the nature of the relationship — enhancing or diminishing.

R-E PATTERNS:

• No BLAME

• Don’t ASSUME things are done on PURPOSE

D-M PATTERNS:

• BLAMING

• Not giving enough CREDIT for POSITIVE CONTRIBUTIONS

2. 4 HORSEMEN OF THE APOCALYPSE

Patterns in relationship communication that indicate the relationship is in distress

• CRITICISM

• CONTEMPT

• DEFENSIVENESS

• STOLEWALLING

---

Studies used:

R-E/D-M Patterns: Bradbury & Fincham

4 HOTA: Gottman et al.

---

CAPER:

STRENGTH: PRACTICAL APPLICATION

LIMITATION: ALTERNATIVE THEORY (Social Penetration Theory)

Bradbury & Fincham

AIM: to investigate the role of COMMUNICATION PATTERNS on the SUCCESS of relationships

TYPE OF RESEARCH: CORRELATIONAL study
PROCEDURE: 47 MARRIED COUPLES (Live together + No therapy) Survey: MARITAL SATISFACTION. Questionnaire: CONFLICTS? If so, WHO’s RESPONSIBLE? Later, convene and solve problem

RESULTS: Relationship-enhancing patterns demonstrated in the individual questionnaires as well as the problem-solving activity COULD PREDICT the INITIALLY REPORTED level of marital satisfaction. However, the initially reported level of marital satisfaction COULD NOT PREDICT the communication patterns of the participants.

LINK: Goes to show that relationship-enhancing communication patterns can lead to marital satisfaction and that there are separate ways in which humans communicate with their partners that may impact the dynamics of their relationship

STRENGTH: CONSTRUCT VALIDITY

LIMITATION: ECOLOGICAL VALIDITY

Gottman et al.

AIM: to identify PATTERNS in communication between couples STAYING TOGETHER & DIVORCING
TYPE OF RESEARCH: CORRELATIONAL study

PROCEDURE: 85 couples (chosen to represent different levels of marital satisfaction). Brought to LOVE LAB: asked to DISCUSS 3 Topics: EVENTS of the day, something POSITIVE in relationship, a RECENT CONFLICT. Covert observation + measuring physiological responses

RESULTS: Relationships in distress showed 4 patterns: CRITICISM, CONTEMPT, DEFENSIVENESS, STONEWALLING

LINK: Goes to show how there are certain patterns of communication, which tend to be mostly negative, that can directly influence the dynamics of a relationship and lead to potential dissolution

STRENGTH: INTERNAL VALIDITY

LIMITATION: GENERALIZABILITY

Why Relationships Change/End

Relationship DISSOLUTION:

the PROCESS through which personal relationships CHANGE or DETERIORATE due to patterns of COMMUNICATION, DISSATISFACTION, or EXTERNAL pressures

1. SOCIAL EQUITY THEORY

• Relationships can ONLY ENDURE if there is the PERCEPTION of EQUITY

• Said equity must be on OWN TERMS

• Objectively deal-breaking vices, such as extramarital affairs, may be written off/justified/tolerated if there is PERCEIVED EQUITY

2. 4 HORSEMEN OF THE APOCALYPSE

Certain distress-enforcing/maintaining patterns of communication, such as those founded by Gottman et al, may also alter the dynamics of relationships, potentially leading to their dissolution unless fixed:

• CRITICISM

• CONTEMPT

• DEFENSIVENESS

• STONEWALLING

---

Studies used:

Social Equity Theory: Hatfield et al.

4 HOTA: Gottman et al.

---

CAPER:

STRENGTH: PRACTICAL APPLICATION
LIMITATION: FATAL ATTRACTION THEORY

Hatfield et al.

AIM: to investigate the ASSUMPTION that EXTRAMARITAL AFFAIRS are a result of an IMBALANCE in PERCEIVED EQUITY

TYPE OF RESEARCH: CORRELATIONAL study

PROCEDURE: 2000 USA COUPLES. Asked to answer questions: 1. DESCRIBE PARTNER. 2. DISCUSS NATURE of relationship (over/underbenefit) 3. EXTRAMARITAL AFFAIRS?

RESULTS: Individuals who feel they UNDERBENEFIT are more likely to have an affair. Relationships can SURVIVE only if they’re EQUITABLE

LINK: Goes to show that social equity theory, more specifically the imbalance in perceived equity via an over/underbenefiting, can account for the dissolution of some relationships.

STRENGTH: GENERALIZABILITY

LIMITATION: PREDICTIVE VALIDITY

Gottman et al.

AIM: to identify patterns in COMMUNICATION between relationships that LAST and those that get DIVORCED

TYPE OF RESEARCH: CORRELATIONAL study

PROCEDURE: 85 Couples (Different levels of marital satisfaction) LOVE LAB: Discuss EVENTS of day, one POSITIVE thing about the relationship, and a CURRENT CONFLICT. Physiological response = recorded. Covert observations

RESULTS: Found 4 common aspects that indicate a relationship may be in distress and unsustainable: Criticism, contempt, defensiveness, stonewalling

LINK: Goes to show that there are certain patterns of communication that may result in a relationship under distress that can ultimately lead to the dissolution of the relationship

STRENGTH: INTERNAL VALIDITY

LIMITATION: GENERALIZABILITY

Biological Approach to Prosocial Behavior

• Prosocial behavior = any form of behavior that benefits society

• One form of prosocial behavior is altruism

• Altruism is when an individual acts in the best interest of others rather than themselves

• Prosocial behavior can be examined through the lens of biology

• Some psychologists seek to discover if there is an evolutionary explanation behind our prosocial behavior

Kinship Selection Theory

• Degree of altruism is contingent on genetic similarity

• Has evolved, now it’s the illusion/feeling of family

• Driving mechanism: Inclusive Fitness

• Idea that people are willing to harm their own fitness (mental, physical, financial) if it benefits their gene pool

• Reproductive potential offset costs of helping

Altruism is Inherent

• Some have posited that prosocial behavior isn’t something you learn but something you are born with

---

STUDIES USED

• Warneken et al.

• Marsh et al.

---

CAPER:

Strengths: Evidence for

Limitations: Alternative Theory (cog/socult)

Warneken et al.

AIM: To investigate if altruism is inherent in chimps and human infants

TYPE OF RESEARCH: True experiment

PROCEDURE: Sampled 18 chimps & 22 human infants. Chimps were allocated to 1 of 2 conditions. Con 1: Observe researcher reaching for stick. Con 2: Observe researcher staring at the stick out of reach. Human infants were allocated to 1 of 2 conditions. Con 1: Observe researcher reaching for pen. Con 2: Observe researcher staring at the pen out of reach. Response observed

RESULTS: Over 50% of the time, both chimps and infants showed altruistic behavior

LINK: Goes to show that prosocial behaviors like altruism may be inherent rather than something learned

STRENGTH: Internal validity (lab)

LIMITATIONS: Internal validity (cv: social learning + sampling bias)

Marsh et al.

AIM: to investigate ‘extraordinary altruists’

TYPE OF RESEARCH: Quasi experiment

PROCEDURE: 19 extraordinary altruists (kidney donation to stranger) matched with 20 similar control individuals. 3 tasks: 1. fMRI emotions recognition (showed 6 emotions to 2 intensities, reaction time measured) 2. MRI scan to observe brain structrure. 3. tests on psychopathy & empathy

RESULTS: extraordinary altruists: higher right amygdala volume + faster reaction time to emotions

LINK: Goes to show that there may be a biological component to prosocial behavior and that this attribute may be localized to the right amygdala.

STRENGTHS: Internal validity (matched pairs + method triangulation + standardization)

LIMITATIONS: Generalizability (small sample size + individualistic culture)

Cognitive Approach to Prosocial Behavior

• Prosocial behavior = any form of behavior that benefits society

• One form of prosocial behavior is altruism

• Altruism is when an individual acts in the best interest of others rather than themselves

• In cognitive psychology, researchers have posited that: specific states of mind (e.g., empathy, egoism & negative mood) can influence the degree of help

Social Exchange Theory

• Cognitively weigh costs & benefits

• Costs must outweigh benefits

Negative State Relief

• Egoistic motives lead us to help others, rather than our own altruism

• Prosocial behavior = motivated by the desire to reduce own discomfort

• You help others to reduce the discomfort caused by their negative situation

Empathy-Altruism Model

• Distinguishes the kinds of motives behind helping behaviors

• 2 kinds of cognitive states

1. Personal Distress

2. Empathetic Concern

---

STUDIES USED:

• Toi & Batson

• Feshbach & Feshbach

---

CAPER:

Strengths: Practical Application (education)

Limitations: Alternative Theory (bio/socult) + Credibility (self reporting)

Toi & Batson

AIM: To see if the manipulation of the level of empathy would influence their likelihood of help

TYPE OF RESEARCH: True experiment

PROCEDURE: 84 female uni students. Allocated to either high or low empathy condition. High empathy: imagine how someone may feel. Low empathy: normal replay of interview. Given a scenario: Carol. Questionnaire: emotional reponse to interview. After, given 2 escape conditions. Condition 1: easy escape (no anticipate see Carol again). Condition 2: hard escape (anticipate seeing Carol again)

RESULTS: Low empathy —> low empathy reporting. Low empathy —> more likely to escape when easy escape. High empathy —> high empathy reporting. High empathy —> more likely to help in general

LINK: Goes to show that the manipulation of empathy will result in varying levels of willingness to help. Supports Empathy-Altruism model by demonstrating empathetic concern.

STRENGTHS: Generalizability (large sample) + Internal Validity (women-only, no attraction)
LIMITATIONS: Internal Validity (social desirability in self reporting) + Generalizability (all women, individualistic culture) + Deception (lying about Carol)

Feshbach & Feshbach

AIM: To investigate if junior high children can be trained to be more empathetic

TYPE OF RESEARCH: True experiment

PROCEDURE: Sampled junior high children. Allocated them to 1 of 2 conditions. Condition 1 was empathy training; this involved 1. imagining how others might feel 2. learning to recognize others’ feelings 3. talking about own feelings. Other condition was control. Their behavior at school was then observed

RESULTS: Children who received empathy training: less aggressive in playground + more likely to mediate/intervene

LINK: Goes to show that empathy can be trained. When it is enforced via empathy training, likelihood altruistic behavior in turn increases

STRENGTHS: Internal Validity (lab experiment)
LIMITATIONS: Internal Validity (participant variability in social learning)

Sociocultural Approach to Prosocial Behavior

• Prosocial behavior = any form of behavior that benefits society

• One form of prosocial behavior is altruism

• Altruism is when an individual acts in the best interest of others rather than themselves

• Sociocultural psychologists have found that various social and cultural constructs & theories, such as Social Identity Theory = used to predict an individual’s propensity towards prosocial behavior

Social Identity Theory

• Tajfel

• Personal & Social Identity

• Categorization —> Identification —> Comparison

• In-group favoritism & Salience

Cultural Factors

• Individualistic vs. Collectivistic

• Economic productivity?

---

STUDIES USED：

• Levine et al.

• Levine et al.

---

CAPER:
Strengths: Practical Application (cross-cultural social science)

Limitations: Alternative Thoery (bio/cog)

Levine et al.

AIM: To investigate the importance of social identity in prosocial behavior

TYPE OF RESEARCH: Field experiment

PROCEDURE: 45 self-identified ManU fans. Questionnaire: 1. What team do you support? 2. How do you feel towards other fans. Building A —> Building B. On way there, confederate fell. 3 conditions. Con 1: ManU jersey. Con 2: Liverpool fans. Con 3: Blank shirt

RESULTS: More likely to help ManU jersey. Liverpool = Blank shirt

LINK: Goes to show that participants are more likely to perform prosocial behavior towards people they identify as their in-group, thereby demonstrating how social identity theory & in-group bias can make individuals more likely to perform prosocial behavior

STRENGTHS: Ecological Validity (field)

LIMITATIONS: Generalizability + CC Validity (all british) + Internal Validity (low levels of control)

Levine et al.

AIM: to investigate the role of economic productivity and cultural values on prosocial behavior

TYPE OF RESEARCH: Cross-cultural, field

PROCEDURE: 36 countries, conducted in largest city. 3 kinds of experiments: blind man, dropped pen, leg brace

RESULTS: Negative association between economic productivity & willingness to help. Weak association between cultural values & willingness to help

LINK: Demonstrates how sociocultural factors like a location’s economic productivity insinuate reduced amounts of willingness to help/prosocial behavior.

STRENGTH: CC Validity + Ecological Validity (field)

LIMITATION: Internal Validity (low control)

Bystanderism

• Bystanderism: notion that the mere presence, among other factors, of others may change an individual’s willingness to help someone in need

• Suggests: bystanders aren’t apathetic/callous, but circumstantial factors (e.g., presence/ abundance of others) can override an individual’s: distress, concern, motivation to help

Diffusion of Responsibility

• Reason: someone else can, should, and will help

• Lack of intervention is furthere justified by individual’s perception of a lack in competence, cues & knowledge

Informational Social Influence

• Conformity

• Determine how to react/act in response to the behavior of others

• Pluralistic Ignorance (choosing to act out of own line of thought just to conform with others)

---

STUDIES USED:

• Darley & Latané

• Latané & Rodin

---

CAPER:
Strengths: Practical Application (bystanderism intervention)

Limitations: Alternative Theory (bio, some more likely than others) + Credibility (same researchers — Latané)

Darley & Latané

AIM: To investigate how the presence of others may influence an individual’s likelihood of helping

TYPE OF EXPERIMENT: Lab experiment

PROCEDURE: Undergrad from NYU & Columbia. Interview over intercom (giving advice to freshmen). 4 conditions: 5 others, 2 others, 1 other, alone. Pre-recorded researcher audio starts making seizure noises. Participants’ willingness to help = observed.

RESULTS: More people present —> less likely to help. 85% of time, solo condition participants rushed to help

LINK: Goes to show how the amount of people present can lead to diffusion of responsibility which can in turn lead individuals to not help and be bystanders

STRENGTHS: Ecological Validity + Internal Validity
LIMITATIONS: Generalizability & CC Validity

Latané & Rodin

AIM: To investigate if others’ behaviors will influence an individual’s likelihood to help

TYPE OF RESEARCH: True experiment

PROCEDURE: Undergrad from NYU + Columbia. Participants in waiting room for experiment. 1 of 2 conditions. Condition 1: alone. Condition 2: unresponsive confederate. Researcher in room next door falls and scream. Participants’ willingness to help = recorded. Questionnaire: share thoughts + anxiety levels

RESULTS: Alone participants responded more quickly + was more likely to help. Questionnaire revealed that the confederate’s unresponsiveness —> they concluded there was no emergency

LINK: Goes to show how informational social influence can reduce an individual’s propensity towards helping when its needed.

STRENGTHS: Internal Validity (lab)

LIMITATIONS: Internal Validity (social desirability) + Generalizability/CC Validity (NYU + Columbia)

Promoting Prosocial Behavior

• Prosocial behavior = any form of behavior that benefits society

• One form of prosocial behavior is altruism

• Altruism is when an individual acts in the best interest of others rather than themselves

• Seeing as prosocial behavior benefits society, naturally social psychologists would want to promote it

• This can be done through various mediums, including: TV, Education/Training, Games

• Prosocial behavior = most effectively instilled in earlier stages of socialization (children)

---

STUDIES USED:

• Feshbach & Feshbach

• Banyard et al.

---

CAPER:

Strengths: Practical Application (education…) + Holistic (various mediums)

Limitations: Alternative Theory (prosocial behavior is inherent in some, doesn’t need training)

Feshbach & Feshbach

AIM: To investigate if junior high children can be trained to be more empathetic

TYPE OF RESEARCH: True experiment

PROCEDURE: Sampled junior high children. Allocated them to 1 of 2 conditions. Condition 1 was empathy training; this involved 1. imagining how others might feel 2. learning to recognize others’ feelings 3. talking about own feelings. Other condition was control. Their behavior at school was then observed

RESULTS: Children who received empathy training: less aggressive in playground + more likely to mediate/intervene

LINK: Goes to show that empathy can be trained. When it is enforced via empathy training, likelihood altruistic behavior in turn increases

STRENGTHS: Internal Validity (lab experiment)
LIMITATIONS: Internal Validity (participant variability in social learning)

Banyard et al.

AIM: To investigate if people would be more likely to intervene SA after training

TYPE OF RESEARCH: True experiment

PROCEDURE: 389 undergrad students. 3 conditions. Con 1: 3 SA training sessions. Con 2: 1 SA training session. Con 3: No training session. 4 months later —> Questionnaire: would you help?

RESULTS: Participants in Con 1 & 2 more likely to report that they would help.

LINK: Goes to show that prosocial behavior, like intervening SA, can be promoted through the use of training sessions

STRENGTHS: Generalizability (large sample) + Internal Validity (true)
LIMITATIONS: Credibility (self-reporting) + CC Validity (individualistic culture)