paper 2 - human relationships

Formation of personal relationships | Bio | Evolutionary psychology K&U

explains human behaviour through natural selection and adaptation.

Personal relationships → evolved preferences for mates with characteristics that enhance offspring survival.

3 main factors of evolutionary preference/psychology

1. Differential fitness: Organisms have traits adapted to their environment to varying degrees

2. Survival of the fittest: Better-adapted organisms = higher chances of surviving + producing offspring 

   • Less-adapted organisms = less offspring = their genes gradually disappear

3. Favorable traits promoting survival and reproduction are passed on.

Formation of personal relationships | Bio | 2 studies

Buss (1989) + Wedekind (1995)

Buss

Topic:

Year:

RM:

Sampling method:

Sample:

Measurement method:

Topic: Formation of personal relationships (BIO + SOCIO)

Year: 1989

RM: Correlational, cross-cultural survey study

Sampling method: systematic, self-selected (newspaper ads), and opportunity sampling

Sample: 10,000 participants, 37 cultures, 6 continents

Measurement method: 1. Demographic data (age, sex, religion, marital status). 2. rankings of mate preferences (age, chastity, financial prospects, physical attractiveness).

Formation | Bio | Buss (1989) - STRENGTHS AND LIMS

+ Cross-cultural design (37 cultures)

Large sample size (10,000)

Standardized questionnaire

-

Correlational study = bidirectional ambiguity

Cultural interpretation issues for traits (age, physical attractiveness, chastity, financial prospects)

Formation of personal relationships | Bio | K&U topics

1. Evolutionary preferences

2. Evolution and immune system as a proxy for survival

Formation of personal relationships | Bio | Evolution and immune system as a proxy for survival K&U

Immune system - human adaptations (ex. pheromones via the olfactory system) to detect genes coding for robustness of immune system) = ensures higher chances of survival for offspring

Attraction influenced by MHC (Major Histocompatibility Complex) genes that code for immune system strength

individuals subconsciously drawn to partners with dissimilar MHC genes (via pheromones + olfactory system) = genetically robust offspring

Wedekind

Topic:

Year:

RM:

Sampling method:

Sample:

Measurement method:

Topic: Formation of personal relationships (BIO)

Year: 1995

RM: Quasi-experiment

Sampling method: Volunteer sample

Sample: 44m, 44f, uni students

Measurement method: “sexiness/pleasantness of odour”

Design: Double-blind

Formation | Bio | Wedekind (1995) - STRENGTHS AND LIMS

+ Controlled experiment

+ Double blind

+ Control shirt (unworn)

- Small, homogenous sample

- Artificial setting

Formation of personal relationships | Bio | Critical thinking

1. Deterministic explanation

2. Reductionistic

3. Low generalisability due to heteronormative nature of research 

4. Highly speculative (guessing ab the past)

Contrast BIO + SOCIO explanation for formation of personal relationships

Biological

• deterministic + reductionistic

• high Internal validity

Sociocultural

• Self reported data, cultural interpretation, low internal validity

• holistic explanation

Formation of personal relationships | Socio | Cultural Values & Attraction

• Individualist cultures: Loose ties between individuals – look after yourself and immediate family, encourage competition

• Collectivist cultures: Identity is defined by relationships with others and belonging to groups (family and social)

• Preferences in attributes or traits when looking for a potential mate differs depending on what your cultural values are

Formation of personal relationships | Socio | buss | Results

Females (collectivist cultures) ❤ social status + ambition > females (individualistic cultures)

→ bring pride and wealth to the wider family

Males (collectivist cultures) ❤ domestic skills >

> males (individualistic cultures)

→ live independent, not co-dependent

Levine

Topic:

Year:

RM:

Sampling method:

Sample:

Measurement method:

Design:

Topic: Formation of relationships (SOCIO)

Year: 1995

RM: cross-cultural, questionnaire-based survey

Sampling method: opportunity sampling of college students

Sample: 1,170 undergraduate students.

Measurement method: "If a man (woman) had all the other qualities you desired, would you marry this person if you were not in love with him (her)?"

Design: matched groups, language Standardization

Formation | Socio | Levine | STRENGTHS AND LIMS

+ Cross cultural comparison

+ Diverse sample

+ Simple, standardised question

- Sample composition

- Translation + interpretation issues

Formation | Socio | Critical thinking

1. Self-Report and Social Desirability Effects

2. Cultural Bias and Interpretation of “traits”

3. Oversimplification of Cultural Dimensions

   • Maybe mate preferences are due to cultural factors such as enculturation, social cognitive theory, or patriarchal systems rather than evolution.

To what extent - Socio | BICT

TWE → Wedekind (1995) alt bio explanation

Role of communication | K&U

Communication = not only frequency/intensity of arguments, but HOW the couple communicates

→ helps maintain healthy and happy personal relationships

The ratio of negative to positive communication patterns can influence marital (dis)satisfaction.

Role of communication | Gottman’s “Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse”

1. contempt

   1. demand/withdrawl pattern

2. criticism

   1. defensiveness

Role of communication | Contempt + Demand/withdrawal

Contempt: assuming a position of moral superiority over someone to make them feel despised and worthless

→ Demand/withdrawal pattern → stonewalling: listener withdraws from the interaction, shuts down, and simply stops responding to their partner

Role of communication | Criticism + Defensiveness

Criticism: attack on your partner at the core of their character, not complaining

→ Defensiveness: as response to criticism, even reversing blame in attempt to make it the other partner’s fault

Gottman & Levenson (1992)

Topic:

Year:

RM:

Duration:

Sampling method:

Sample:

Measurement method:

Design:

Topic: Role of communication

Year: 1992

RM: Longitudinal study (interview + observations)

Duration: 4 years

Sampling method: Purposive and Convenience sampling (wide distribution of QMI scores)

Sample: 73 married couples

Measurement method: Heart rate, Rapid couples interaction scoring system (RCISS) during interview, questionnaires for marital satisfaction and relationship perception

Design: Triangulation, negative:positive ratio

Role of communication | Gottman & Levenson (1992) | STRENGTHS AND LIMS

+ longitudinal

+ Triangulation of data

- Sample bias

- Observer effect = social desirability

Role of communication | 2 K&U

1. Gottman’s “Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse”

2. Demand/withdrawal pattern → stonewalling

Role of communication | 2 Studies

Gottman and Levenson (1992) + Gottman and Levenson (1985)

Gottman & Levenson (1985)

Topic:

Year:

RM:

Duration:

Sampling method:

Sample:

Measurement method:

Design:

Topic: Role of communication

Year: 1985

RM: Longitudinal study (interview + observations)

Duration: 3 years

Sampling method: Purposive and Convenience sampling

Sample: 21 married couples

Measurement method: heart rate, blood pressure, pulse, marital satisfaction

Design: Triangulation, negative:positive ratio

Role of communication | Gottman & Levenson (1985) | Aim

Investigate how communication patterns influence marital satisfaction and the likelihood of divorce.

Role of communication | Gottman & Levenson (1985) | Results

Higher blood pressure and heart rate (stress response) during conflict = marital dissatisfaction. Couples with less physiological stress = communicate more effectively = stable relationship

Role of communication | Gottman & Levenson (1985) | Conclusion

Emotional regulation + calm physiological response = healthy communication = relationship satisfaction

Role of communication | Gottman & Levenson (1985) | Strength & lims

+ Objective physiological data

+ Longitudinal design

- Small, homogenous sample (21 couples)

- Artificial lab setting

Role of communication | Critical thinking

• Self-Report and Social Desirability Effects

• Oversimplification

• Deterministic 

• Models are always inaccurate to some extent

Change or end | Cog | 2 K&Us

1. Attribution theory

2. Resilience

Change or end | Cog | Attribution theory

Examines how individuals explain their partner’s behaviour. According to this theory, marital satisfaction is strongly influenced by the types of attributions partners make. 

Positive attributions → crediting good behaviour to internal traits and excusing negative behaviour as due to external circumstances = stable and satisfying relationships 

Negative attributions → good behaviour is dismissed as situational and bad behaviour is blamed on the partner’s character, often leading to dissatisfaction and conflict. 

Relationship Attribution Measure assesses how partners interpret each other’s actions. 

Consistent negative attributions can erode trust and intimacy, ultimately contributing to relationships ending.

Fincham

Topic:

Year:

RM:

Duration:

Sampling method:

Sample:

Measurement method:

Design:

Topic: Why relationships change/end (COG)

Year: 2000

RM: Prospective longitudinal study.

Duration: 18 months

Sampling method: Convenience and Purposive sampling

Sample: 130 married couples from mid-west

Measurement method: (initial, 6 moths, 18 months) Relationship Attribution Measure (RAM), Quality Marriage Index (QMI)

Design: Bidirectional Testing - both paths were significant

Change or end | Cog | Fincham et al. (2000) | Aim

examined correlations between attribution style and marital satisfaction

Change or end | Cog | Fincham et al. (2000) | Conclusion

Partners who blamed negative behaviours on internal causes reported lower satisfaction, showing that negative attribution styles contribute to relationship deterioration.

Change or end | Cog | Fincham et al. (2000) | link

Persistent negative attributions towards partners fosters resentment, reducing satisfaction, and increases the likelihood of conflict and eventual divorce.

Change or end | Cog | Fincham et al. (2000) | strength & lim

+ Longitudinal

+ Quantitative data

+ Large sample (130)

- Population validity (Midwestern U.S. couples)

- Self-report measures

Change or end | Cog | Resilience

• Resilience to stress could be a result of how couples make attributions.

• Studies have shown that couples who can make positive attributions for their partner’s behaviour are able to maintain marital satisfaction despite experiencing stressful events that might strain the marriage.

• It is possible that positive attributions act as a buffer between stress and marital satisfaction

Change or end | Cog | critical thinking

Bidirectional ambiguity 

• Between satisfaction + attributions

• Between stress + attributions

Explanations for why relationships change or end | Cog | 2 studies

Fincham et al. (2000) + Graham and Conoly (1989)

Formation of personal relationships | Socio | 2 studies

Buss (1989) + Levine et al.’s (1995)

Graham an Conoley

Topic:

Year:

RM:

Duration:

Sampling method:

Sample:

Measurement method:

Topic: Why relationships change or end (COG)

Year: 1989

RM: A correlational laboratory study

Duration: cross-sectional study, data collected at single point but reported life stressors from past 12 months

Sampling method: Convenience and Purposive sampling

Sample: 58 married texan couples

Measurement method: Stress Measure, Attributions, Marital quality