human relationship studies outline + evaluation

Bradbury and Finchman outline + evaluation (communication essay)

Findings: couples engage in

1. relationship enching patterns= attribute positive aspects to the partner and negative aspects to externous variabkes7 the situation / environment

2. distress mantaining patterns= attribute negative things to the partner and positive things to the situation

strenghts:

see trend over the year

limitations:

bidirectional ambiguity ( is it the cause or the sympton?)

Gottman outline + evaluation (communication essay)

argues: not what we say, but how we say it

procedure: couples came to his lab and engage in normal topic and topics that would likely lead to discussion.

measured heart rate / galvanic skin response

findings:

there are 4 “horses of apocalypses”: critisim, stonewalling, defensiveness and contempt (disprezzo).

if the partner shows contempt in discussion=> lead to divorce

Limitations

1. self fulfilling prophecency => less valid findings

2. couples are already in crisis => sampling bias as one partner may have already decided to leave the other one

discussion paragraph communication essay (4)

1. western/ educated sample => sampling bias

2. often self reported data => open to distortion / peak end rule

3. researcher often done in couples that are already struggling/ seek couceling

4. bidirectional ambiguity

5. reductionist approach (communication is only partly assess the health of the relationship)

Hatfield outline + evaluation (ending relationship essay)

argues: lack of equity leads to marital dissatisfaction

procedure: gave questionnaire to 2000 couples

findings: who felt under/ over benefitted => not think that their relationship would last long

limitations:

hypothetical study

did not verify if the prediction were accurate

Bradbury and Fincham (end relationship essay)

prospective study

argues: how couples communicate with each other influences the health of the relationship.

couples engage in:

relationship enhancing patterns: attribute good things to the partner and bad things to the situation => good predictor of marital satrisfaction

distress mantaining patterns: attribute good things to the situation and bad things to the partner => low marital satisfaction

Gottman outline (end relationship essay)

argue that the problem is not what we say it, but how we say it

procedure: couples came in his lab and had to discuss normal topic/ topic that would lead to discussion.

blood pressure / heart rate and galavnic skin response measured

findings: 4 “horses of apocalipses”

1. contempt

2. defensiveness

3. stonewalling

4. critisism

limitations paragraph end relationship essay (5)

1. correlational research

2. western/ educated / high social status / already in crisis sample => sample bias

3. bidirectional ambiguity

4. data relias on memory=> open to distortion / peak end rule( cognitive bias)

5. difficult to know how they measure the variables such as level of disclosure/ contempt / attribution style (difficult to operationalise the variable)

Wedekind outline + evaluation (bio essay)

Strenghts: highly controlled (double blind) / standardize procedure / replicated successfully

Limitations: low ecological validity (low mundane realism)/ small/ WEIRD sample size

(more for human initatial attraction than formation and development of relationships)

Ditzen et al (2009) outline + evaluation (bio essay)

Aim:

test the role of oxytocin (hormone) in how couples discuss

Procedure:

double blind

placebo

47 heterosexual couples

received either placebo / oxytocin nasaly

videotaped having a discussion about a controversial argument

Findings:

lower cortisol level/ more communication in experiment group

strengths: takes into account that oxytocin is not the only factor influencing relatio ship, but it is interesting insights about human relationships.

Buss et al (1989) outline + evaluation (bio essay)

procedure:

questionnaire

10.000 participants

37 cultures

findings:

men prioroitize physical attraction (average age preffered 23=> peak of fertilisation)

women financial status /stability

american prioritize love in relationships

non- western culture (es. egypt) prioritized educxation / social status before

limitations:

focus on difference rather than similarities

cultures change over time => globalised world

temporal validity as it is a rather old study

Markey and Markey (2007) outline + evaluation (cognitive essay)

Aim: investigated the extent to which similarity is a factor in the way people choose a partner.

 

Procedure: Using questionnaires, the researchers asked a large self-selected sample of undergraduate students to describe the psychological characteristics, values, and attitudes of their ideal romantic partner, without thinking of anyone in particular. Afterward, they were asked to describe themselves. In a follow-up study, the researchers used 106 heterosexual young couples who had been together for a year. The self-selected sample of 212 participants was recruited through advertisements in the local newspaper and around the university campus where the research took place. The participants filled out a questionnaire about their own as well as their partner’s personality characteristics.

 

Findings first study: The results showed that the way the participants described themselves was similar to what they were seeking in their ideal partner

 

Findings follow up study: couples who experienced the most loving and harmonious relationships have romantic partners who are similar to themselves in some characteristics but not all.  (es. one is more dominant/ the other is more submussive)

Thus

Having a total simmilarity may be a wish but not when it comes for mantaining long term harmony.

 

Limitations:

1. The study was based on self-report questionnaire which means that the responses may have been influenced by demand characteristics.

2. The sample consisted of young American students, so it is not possible to generalize to other populations unless similar research was to be conducted with couples in different kinds of relationships, or from other cultures to confirm the results.

3. Finally, the study used correlational analysis and it is, therefore, difficult to establish a cause-and-effect relationship between personality and preference in a romantic partner.

 

Strengths: results are based on a relatively large sample, and this enhances the reliability of the study.

 

Fiore and Donath (2003) outline + evaluation (cognitive essay)

Procedure:

Researchers examined messaging data from 65,000 users of a United States dating site.

Findings: users preferred a potential partner who had a high level of similarity in a variety of categories, but some categories appeared to be more significant than others - for example, wanting to have children.  They also found that women responded more positively to men whose popularity on the site was similar to their own.

strengths:

high ecological validity

account for personal differences in attraction

limitations:

WEIRD sample => biased sample

Dion et al outline + evaluation (cognitive)

procedure:

participants were given 3 photos, each with an attractive/ medio attractive and unattractive person, and than asked the participants to rate them in perosnality traits

findings: if the perosn was attractive, more positive traits were assumed to have (es. successful in work, good potential husband/ wife)

strengths:

lòevel of attraction was measured by people rating them before

limitations:

low ecological validity

reductionist approach=> however it is how cognitive bias work

(happens when you apply for jobs as well)

Zajonc outline and evaluation (sociocultural effect)

argues: the more familiar we are with someone=> the more attractive we find them (more likely) (mere exposure effect)

Procedure:

female students looked at male picture at different frequencies, asked to rank the attractiveness of the males in the photos

Findings:

positive relationship between frequency and attraction

strengths:

replicated successfully in natural environment

highly internal validity

limitations:

reductionist as articificial => but replicated successfully in natural settings

Buss (1989) outline + evaluation (sociocultural approach)

procedure:

questionnaire

10.000 participants

37 cultures

findings:

men prioroitize physical attraction (average age preffered 23=> peak of fertilisation)

women financial status /stability

american prioritize love in relationships

non- western culture (es. egypt) prioritized educxation / social status before

limitations:

proves more bio approach than sociocultural approach

cultures change over time => globalised world

temporal validity as it is a rather old study

questionnaire used?=> demand characteristic due to scoial desirability effect

strengths:

huge sample