personal relationships - studies - paper 2

Fisher - neurotransmitters - m3f2

aim: To investigate specific neural mechanisms associated with romantic love.

method: 

• Used fMRI scanning on 17 self-selected participants who were intensely in love for around 7 months.

• Participants completed a semi-structured interview and the Passionate Love Scale.

• During scanning, they viewed a photo of their beloved for 30 seconds, followed by a filler task, then a neutral photo for 30 seconds—repeated six times.

findings: 

• fMRI showed increased activity in brain regions rich in dopamine neurons (reward system) when participants viewed their beloved

• Higher passion levels correlated with stronger activation in these reward areas.

fisher strengths and weaknesses

Objective neuroimaging data increases reliability

Small, self-selected sample limits generalizability

Ditzen et al - hormones - m3f1

aim: To investigate the role of oxytocin in couples’ communication during conflict.

method:

• Double-blind, placebo-controlled experiment with 47 heterosexual couples. 

• Each couple received either nasal oxytocin or a placebo, then discussed a contentious issue while being videotaped. 

• Cortisol levels were repeatedly measured from saliva samples.

Findings:

Couples who received oxytocin showed more positive communication and lower cortisol levels than the placebo group.

ditzen et al stregnths and weaknesses

the double blind and placebo increase internal validity

videotaping leads to demand characteristics

Markey and markey - similarity attraction model - m2f2

aim: To investigate whether similarity in personality influences partner choice and relationship harmony.

method:

• Self-selected sample of over 100 heterosexual couples (212 participants) in relationships for about a year.

• Participants completed questionnaires rating their own and their partner’s personality traits.

findings

• People tend to choose partners similar to themselves.

• However, couples in the most harmonious relationships showed some complementary traits (e.g., one dominant, one submissive).

ditzen et al strengths and weaknesses

Large sample size increases generalizability

Self-report method is prone to demand characteristics

hazen and shaver - internal working model - m2.5f3

aim: To investigate whether early attachment styles influence adult romantic relationship patterns.

method:

• Self-selected sample (620 participants, aged 14–82) responded to a newspaper “love quiz” describing one of three attachment styles

  • (secure, avoidant, ambivalent).

• Participants also described parents’ parenting styles using an adjective checklist 

findings:

• Securely attached adults reported responsive parents

• avoidant linked to rejecting parents

• ambivalent linked to inconsistent parents.

hazen and shaver strengths and weaknesses

Large sample increases generalizability

self-report data open to demand characteristics

moreland and beach - mere exposure effect - m3f2

aim: To test the validity of the Mere Exposure Effect in a naturalistic university setting.

method: 

• Field experiment with 130 psychology students.

• Four female confederates attended varying numbers of lectures (0, 5, 10, 15 times) without interacting.

• At semester’s end, participants rated each woman (1–7) on traits like attractiveness, warmth, and intelligence.

findings:

• The more often a woman attended class, the higher she was rated on positive traits such as attractiveness and likeability.

• Familiarity increased positive perception despite no interaction.

moreland and beach strengths and weaknesses

High ecological validity

Lacked control over extraneous variables

gupta and singh - differences in culture - m2f2

aim: To compare levels of love over time between individuals in arranged and love marriages.

method: 

• 50 participants from Jaipur, India, in arranged or love marriages

• Completed Rubin’s Love Scale questionnaires at various times after marriage (up to 10 years).

findings:

• Love marriages began with higher love levels, which declined over 10 years.

• Arranged marriages began lower but increased over time, surpassing love marriages by year 10.

gupta and singh strengths and weaknesses

Longitudinal design shows love development over time

Self reported data open to demand characteristics

bradbury and fincham - attribution style - m3f2

aim: To investigate how communication styles differ between happy and unhappy couples, focusing on causal and responsibility attributions.

method:

• Observational study with 47 married couples (avg. marriage length 8.5 years) recruited via local ads.

• Each spouse identified major marital problems individually, then discussed one shared issue together for 15 minutes in a lab while being video recorded.

• Three independent researchers coded the interactions for relationship-enhancing vs. distress-maintaining behaviors.

findings:

• Couples with lower marital satisfaction showed more distress-maintaining patterns—blaming partners, seeing actions as intentional and selfish.

• Happier couples showed more relationship-enhancing communication, attributing problems to situational factors.

Bradbary and Fincham strengths and weaknesses

naturalistic problem discussions enhanced ecological validity

sample bias (Western couples only)

gottman - communication and conflict

aim: To investigate whether positive communication behaviors predict long-term marital stability.

method:

• 124 newlywed, childless couples recruited via newspaper ad. 

• Each completed the Marital Adjustment Test (MAT) yearly for 6 years. 

• Couples discussed an ongoing disagreement for 15 minutes while physiological measures (heart rate, blood pressure, and skin galvanization.) were recorded. 

• Interactions were videotaped and coded by two independent observers. 

• Each spouse later rated their own emotional reactions while viewing the video.

findings:

• High-intensity negative affect (belligerence, defensiveness, contempt) predicted divorce. 

• Wife’s low-intensity negative affect also predicted divorce. 

• Active listening and validation were rarely demonstrated and did not predict positive marital outcomes.

gottman strengths and weaknesses

Longitudinal design (6 years) gives temporal validity

Self-selected sample → selection bias (may not represent all couples)