Sherif | Aim: Investigate the role of social identity in intergroup conflict. Test Realistic Conflict Theory (RCT), which predicts that:
Method: Participants: 22 boys (11-12 years old), White, Protestant, middle-class, socially well-adjusted, and unaware they were in a study. Setting: Summer camp at Robbers Cave State Park, Oklahoma. Procedure: Group Formation: Boys were randomly assigned to two groups (Eagles & Rattlers). They engaged in bonding activities and developed group identity (e.g., team names, flags).
Conflict Introduction: Competitive games (e.g., tug-of-war, baseball) created rivalry. Situations were designed to increase conflict (e.g., one group missing out on a picnic). Hostility emerged: name-calling ("stinkers," "cheaters"), flag burning, and physical fights. Boys rated their own group positively and the other group negatively.
Conflict Resolution: Initial reconciliation attempts failed. Introduced superordinate goals (requiring cooperation), such as: Result: Intergroup hostility decreased, and boys rated the other group more positively.
Results: Intergroup conflict emerged naturally when competing for resources. Working toward common goals reduced hostility and promoted cooperation. Findings support Realistic Conflict Theory as an explanation for group prejudice and discrimination.
Evaluation: ✅ Strengths: High ecological validity (real-life setting). Naturalistic behaviors observed. Supports theories of group conflict and cooperation.
❌ Limitations: Lack of control over extraneous variables (e.g., leaders’ behavior). Self-report bias in hostility reduction after cooperation. Ethical concerns: Deception (boys didn’t know it was a study). Psychological harm (some boys showed anxiety symptoms, e.g., bedwetting, homesickness).
Limited generalizability (sample: only 12-year-old, White, middle-class boys). Simplistic model of conflict (may not apply to ethnic or national conflicts).
Conclusion: The study demonstrates how group identity and competition lead to conflict, while cooperation reduces hostility. Findings explain real-world prejudice and intergroup discrimination but lack generalizability beyond the sample.
|
Deutsch & Krauss | Aim: Method: Results: Cooperation led to higher profits for both companies. The best strategy was taking turns using the one-lane road. Threats led to more competition and lower profits, especially in the bilateral threat condition.
Conclusion: Threats reduce cooperation in competitive situations. When both companies had equal power to threaten, competition increased, leading to the lowest profits.
Strengths: ✅ Demonstrates real-world competition dynamics in a controlled setting.
✅ Highlights how threats and power imbalance affect decision-making. Limitations: ❌ Lacks real-world applicability (lab experiment with artificial conditions).
❌ Limited generalizability (only female participants, specific industry).
❌ No option to maintain status quo, which may be a cooperative strategy in real-life business. Methodological Issues: Ethical Considerations: |
Phelps | Aim: To investigate racial bias and neural responses (activation of the amygdala) when evaluating black/white faces. Method: A lab experiment using fMRI. Participants: 14 White Americans. Procedure: While in fMRI, participants looked at Black and White faces, pictures taken from yearbooks. They were told that it was a memory test. After each face had been shown they were asked if it was the same or different from the preceding face. Then they took different measures of racial stereotypes; the Implicit Association test (IAT score) for ethnic prejudice, which is an unconscious measure and “The Modern Racism scale” to measure conscious self-reported beliefs. One week later, they measured their startle response to the same pictures. This is also a way to measure indirect racial bias as the amygdala response is associated with fear. Results: The IAT score showed slower responses to these pairings: black + good, white + bad. There was also a greater startle eyeblink response towards the black faces. On the conscious self-reported test, subjects expressed pro-black attitudes and beliefs. Amygdala activation was correlated against the other measures. It was found that amygdala activation was correlated with the negative indirect responses to black compared to white faces. Conclusion: The researchers conclude that this study shows that looking at the faces from members of Black and White social groups can activate the amygdala differently and that this activity is related to unconscious social evaluation. |
Harris and Fiske | See sociocultural |
Novotny and Polonsky | Aim: Background: Allport (1954): Contact with out-groups reduces prejudice by lowering anxiety, increasing empathy, and changing perceptions. Integrated Threat Theory: Prejudice arises when an out-group is seen as a threat (e.g., moral, cultural, or economic threats).
Method: Correlational study using questionnaires. Sample: 716 university students from 7 cities in the Czech Republic & Slovakia. Stratified sampling: Represented university specializations (social sciences, technology, natural sciences). Participants approached in lecture halls and asked to complete the questionnaire.
Results: ✅ Strengths: ✔ Large sample size for reliable data. ✔ University students may be more open-minded, giving insight into educated youth perspectives.
❌ Limitations: ❌ Not representative of the general population (students tend to be more urban, educated, and well-traveled). ❌ Forced-choice questionnaire: No option for neutral responses (e.g., "no opinion"). ❌ Social desirability & demand characteristics: Participants may have answered in a socially acceptable way. ❌ Abstract responses: Unclear if attitudes would match real-life interactions.
|
Fein and Spencer | Aim:📝 Background:Cognitive theory of prejudice: People stereotype others when their self-worth is challenged. "Threatened egotism": When self-perception is threatened, individuals may displace aggression onto an out-group. Freudian "projection": Defending against unconscious qualities by attributing them to others.
🔬 Method:61 male psychology students from Williams College. Random allocation to: Participants read about "Greg," a struggling artist: Scenario 1: Greg lives with his girlfriend (implies he is straight). Scenario 2: Greg has a "partner" (ambiguous, implying he may be gay).
Rated Greg on personality traits, including gay stereotypes (e.g., femininity, sensitivity). Indicated likelihood of friendship with Greg.
📊 Results:Negative feedback group rated Greg as more stereotypically gay. They were less likely to like Greg or befriend him, especially in the "gay implied" scenario. Suggests self-image threat increases stereotyping and prejudice.
✅ Strengths:✔ Strong controls for demand characteristics (pilot study showed explicit labels caused suspicion). ✔ Highly standardized and replicable, ensuring reliability. ✔ Good internal validity (manipulated self-esteem successfully).
❌ Limitations:❌ Low ecological validity (artificial lab setting, may not reflect real-world prejudice). ❌ Assumption that participants had strong self-esteem (not necessarily true). ❌ Small sample size per condition (only ~15 men in the "negative feedback + gay implied" group). ❌ Participant variability (prior experiences with gay men could influence results).
|
Tajfel | Aim:📝 Background:Social Identity Theory (SIT): People classify themselves into in-groups ("us") and out-groups ("them"), leading to different behaviors towards each. Tajfel hypothesized that group categorization alone is enough to create bias, even without prior prejudice.
🔬 Method:48 British schoolboys (ages 14-15) randomly assigned to groups. Rated paintings by Klee and Kandinsky (without knowing the artist). Randomly assigned to "Klee" or "Kandinsky" groups (regardless of their preferences). Task: Allocate points to two other boys (one in-group, one out-group) under two different point allocation systems: Fixed sum system (choosing more points for self meant fewer points for the other). Manipulated system (choosing a lower value for an in-group member minimized the out-group’s points).
📊 Results:System 1: Boys favored their in-group by awarding them more points. System 2: Boys chose to maximize the difference between groups, even at their own expense. Key finding: Mere group categorization was enough to trigger discrimination and in-group favoritism.
📢 Conclusion:"Minimal groups" (arbitrary groupings) lead to in-group favoritism. Intergroup conflict is not necessary for discrimination—just belonging to a group is enough. Challenges previous theories that competition is required for prejudice to occur.
✅ Strengths:❌ Limitations:❌ Low ecological validity (artificial task, may not reflect real-world discrimination). ❌ Demand characteristics (boys may have seen it as a competitive game). ❌ Sampling bias (only British schoolboys; results may not generalize to women, adults, or other cultures).
|
Rogers and Franz | Aim:📝 Background:Humans conform to social norms to gain acceptance and feel a sense of belonging. Stereotypes can form when people adopt the beliefs of their social group, even without personal experience. Study context: European settlers in Southern Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe), where racial segregation was the norm.
🔬 Method:500 White Europeans living in Rhodesia (ages 20+), stratified by factors like length of residence, occupation, education, and political affiliation. Survey of 66 racial policies (e.g., segregation in land, politics, and public spaces). Likert scale responses (0-6): 0 = strongly support segregation, 6 = strongly oppose segregation. Key hypothesis: Longer residence → stronger support for racial segregation.
📊 Results:Average score: 2.45 → Majority favored maintaining segregation. 70% of participants scored below 3.00 (leaning towards conservatism). Newcomers (≤5 years) were least conservative, but over time, they conformed to local prejudices. Residents of 5-9 years were 27% more conservative than newcomers. Statistically significant correlation (p < 0.001) between longer residence and increased conservatism.
📢 Conclusion:Newcomers conform to the prejudices of their new society over time. Stereotypes and discrimination become part of their identity as they integrate into the dominant group. Supports the idea that stereotypes are learned through socialization rather than personal experience.
✅ Strengths:❌ Limitations:❌ Cross-sectional study → Cannot confirm whether individual attitudes truly changed over time. ❌ Other influencing factors (e.g., education, politics) also contributed to prejudice. ❌ Survey responses may not reflect real behavior (e.g., social desirability bias or exaggeration).
|
Paluck | Aim:📝 Method:Field experiment with 480 participants, randomly assigned to one of two groups: Control group: Listened to a radio soap opera about reproductive health and AIDS. Experimental group: Listened to a soap opera about reconciliation between a Hutu and Tutsi character.
Both programs were Rwandan-scripted and financed by NGOs, with culturally relevant storytelling styles.
🎯 Procedure:Duration: Participants listened to 20-minute episodes monthly for a year. Control condition: Focused on social/familial conflict and health responsibility. Experimental condition: Focused on social/political conflict and conflict reduction. The reconciliation story portrayed a Hutu and Tutsi falling in love, overcoming cultural differences. After one year, participants were interviewed individually and in focus groups, and their behavior was observed.
📊 Results:✅ Strengths:✔ Emic approach: Used Rwandan scriptwriters and local interviewers, ensuring cultural relevance. ✔ Field experiment: Real-world context with practical applications in conflict reduction.
❌ Limitations: |
Latané and Darley | Aim:📝 Method:72 university students (59 females, 13 males) participated. Participants discussed personal problems faced by new college students in a city, believing it was a normal group discussion. They were in a booth alone with headphones and a microphone, with the discussion taking place over an intercom for anonymity. At one point, a confederate staged a seizure. The independent variable (IV): the number of bystanders the participant thought were also listening. The dependent variable (DV): the time it took the participant to react and report the seizure.
📊 Results:In the alone condition, 85% of participants reported the seizure. In the condition with four bystanders, only 31% reported the seizure. Conclusion: Diffusion of responsibility and pluralistic ignorance may explain why people hesitate to help in emergencies when others are present.
Strengths:✅ High control over confounding variables ensured reliable results. Limitations:❌ Sample bias: Participants were primarily psychology students from one university, limiting generalizability. 📝 Methodological Considerations:⚖ Ethical Considerations: |
Pilivian | Aim:To investigate how different situational factors influence prosocial behavior, particularly the likelihood and speed of helping in an emergency. 📝 Method:Field experiment conducted on New York subway travelers during non-stop 7.5-minute journeys. Participants: An opportunity sample of subway passengers. Scenarios: Participants witnessed one of two situations: The victims (25-35 years old, dressed identically) collapsed after 70 seconds of the train journey and remained on the floor until helped. A model-helper was instructed to assist if no one helped after 70 seconds. Independent variables (IV): Dependent variables (DV): 103 trials: 38 with a drunk victim. 65 with an ill victim.
📊 Results:78% of the time, someone helped spontaneously: Speed of help: Median response time for the cane victim was 5 seconds, and for the drunk victim was 109 seconds. Helper demographics: Group size effect: Larger groups resulted in faster help, contrary to the diffusion of responsibility theory. The drunk victim took longer to receive help, likely due to people weighing the costs and benefits of helping a potentially "undeserving" victim.
✅ Strengths:❌ Limitations:Less control: Field experiments are less controlled than laboratory experiments. Measurement issues: Some dependent variables (e.g., verbal comments) may have been difficult to measure accurately.
Conclusion:Bystander effect was not observed. Larger groups resulted in quicker help, contradicting the idea of diffusion of responsibility. It took longer to help the drunk victim, suggesting that people take more time to assess the situation when the victim’s need for help is perceived as less legitimate.
|
De Dreu | Aim:To investigate the role of oxytocin in prosocial behavior, specifically its effect on in-group favoritism and out-group derogation, and to explore its relationship with Social Identity Theory. 📝 Background Information:Social Identity Theory: Suggests that people demonstrate in-group favoritism (loyalty to their group) and out-group derogation (negative attitudes toward those not in the group), a behavior that may be rooted in ethnocentrism (a tendency to favor one’s own group). Oxytocin: A hormone involved in human bonding and social behaviors. It plays a role in promoting loyalty and territoriality in animals, which could extend to aggression toward outsiders (out-group derogation) in humans.
🧪 Procedure:📊 Results:✅ Strengths:High control: Double-blind treatment, random allocation to placebo or oxytocin groups, ensuring high internal validity. Control for demand characteristics: Use of a placebo group reduces bias.
❌ Limitations:Ecological validity: The use of moral dilemmas on a computer may not reflect real-life crisis situations, reducing the practical relevance of the findings. Demand characteristics: The nature of the moral dilemmas might still introduce social desirability bias. Reductionist approach: The study oversimplifies human behavior by focusing only on oxytocin and moral decision-making without considering other factors.
Conclusion:The findings suggest that oxytocin may enhance in-group favoritism by making individuals less likely to harm in-group members, but it does not promote out-group derogation. This supports the idea that Social Identity Theory may have an evolutionary basis, with oxytocin playing a role in bonding and loyalty within the group.
|
Drury | Aim:To investigate how Social Identity Theory (SIT) influences helping behavior in emergency situations, using virtual reality to overcome ethical concerns in previous studies. 📝 Background Information:Social Identity Theory: Focuses on how individuals categorize themselves into groups (in-group) and how this identification influences behavior toward others (out-group). In emergency situations, being part of an in-group may increase the likelihood of helping others within that group. Previous Research: A study by Levine et al. (2005) demonstrated that people are more likely to help those from their in-group (e.g., Manchester United fans helping other fans) than those from the out-group (e.g., Liverpool fans).
🧪 Procedure:Participants: 40 students (ages 20-25) from the University of Sussex. Design: Independent measures design, with two conditions—group-identification and individual-identification. Participants experienced a virtual reality simulation of an emergency in the London metro (a fire) where they could either help others or push them to safety. Group-identification condition: Participants imagined themselves with a group of England football supporters (same color vests in VR). Individual-identification condition: Participants imagined themselves as individuals (different colored vests in VR). A small crowd (8 people) or a large crowd (32 people) was simulated to measure crowd size effects.
📊 Results:Group-identification participants: More likely to help others and push people less than those in the individual-identification condition. Crowd size: Did not affect the amount of help given. Conclusion: Participants with a strong sense of group identity (i.e., England supporters) were more likely to engage in prosocial behavior in an emergency, supporting the idea that social identity influences helping behavior.
✅ Strengths:High internal validity: The use of virtual reality allowed for control over extraneous variables. High mundane realism: Despite being virtual, the scenario was realistic and engaging. Replicable: The study’s design allows for replication to test reliability. Ethical: The study avoided undue stress or deception, ensuring high ethical standards.
❌ Limitations:Low ecological validity: Participants did not experience real danger, which may affect how they respond in actual emergencies. The virtual reality experience may not fully capture the complexity of real-life emergency situations.
Conclusion:The study supports Social Identity Theory, showing that group identification increases helping behavior in emergency situations. Participants who identified with a group (in-group) were more likely to help, highlighting the influence of social identity on prosocial behavior. |
Marsh | Aim:To investigate whether extraordinary altruists (such as kidney donors) have biological traits (e.g., larger amygdala volume and faster amygdala responsiveness) that distinguish them from the general population and may contribute to prosocial behavior. 🧠 Background Information:Psychopathy and the Amygdala: Previous research (by Adriane Raine) suggests that psychopaths have a reduced amygdala response and volume, particularly in relation to processing fearful expressions. Extraordinary Altruism: Marsh wanted to explore if people who engage in extraordinary altruism (e.g., donating a kidney to a stranger) might have an opposite pattern—greater amygdala volume and faster responsiveness to fearful stimuli.
🧪 Procedure:Participants: 19 altruistic kidney donors (12 men, 7 women), aged 23-56, who had donated a kidney to a stranger. 20 control participants matched for IQ, income, education, psychological history, and medication use.
Stages: Emotion Recognition Task (fMRI): Participants viewed 120 images showing six basic emotions (anger, disgust, fear, happiness, sadness, and surprise) at high or moderate intensity. They pressed a button to identify the emotion shown. Response times were measured. MRI Scan: To assess brain structure and amygdala volume. Psychopathy and Empathy Tests: Participants completed tests to measure their psychopathy and empathy levels.
📊 Results:Amygdala Volume: Extraordinary altruists had a larger right amygdala volume compared to the control group. The right amygdala is linked to processing fear and negative emotions. Faster Response Time: Altruists showed faster amygdala responses to fearful facial expressions than controls. Comparison with Psychopaths: These results contrast with studies on psychopaths, who typically show reduced amygdala responsiveness and volume, suggesting a biological basis for altruistic behavior.
✅ Evaluation:Strengths: The study provides insight into the biological basis of altruistic behavior, offering evidence that amygdala function may be linked to prosocial actions. The MRI scans and fMRI tasks allowed precise measurement of brain activity.
Limitations: Reductionist Approach: The study focuses on the biological side of altruism, ignoring the complex psychological and social factors involved. Quasi-Experiment: Since participants were not randomly assigned, cause-and-effect relationships cannot be established. Small Sample Size: The small sample size makes it difficult to generalize the findings, and using averages may not provide a clear picture. fMRI Artifacts: Anxiety or discomfort from being inside the fMRI scanner could influence brain activity, potentially affecting the results. Non-Representative Sample: Kidney donors are a specific type of altruist, and their behavior may not represent all forms of altruism, especially spontaneous acts.
Conclusion:This study suggests a potential biological foundation for extraordinary altruism, with larger amygdala volume and faster fear processing linked to prosocial behavior. However, the study's reductionist nature and small sample size limit its ability to fully explain altruistic behavior, which likely involves a mix of biological, psychological, and social factors. |
Greitemeyer & Osswald | Aim:To investigate whether playing a prosocial video game influences the likelihood of helping behavior in a real-life situation. 🧑💻 Procedure:📊 Results:✅ Evaluation:Strengths: The experiment shows a short-term effect of playing prosocial video games on behavior, suggesting that priming (exposure to prosocial content) can encourage helping behavior. Random assignment and controlled variables enhance the internal validity of the study.
Limitations: Short-term effects: The study only measures immediate effects, so it doesn't show whether the priming effect lasts over time. Priming vs. Learning: The results may be due to priming (a temporary boost in prosocial thoughts) rather than a long-term change in behavior or learning. Artificial Scenario: The situation used to measure helping behavior was staged, which may not fully represent real-life helping situations.
Implications: The study supports the idea that prosocial video games can influence behavior positively in the short term. The researchers suggest that prosocial media (e.g., TV and video games) can play a role in teaching prosocial skills and improving social interactions, which is supported by previous research on television’s impact on children's behavior.
|
Beaman | Aim:To investigate whether people can be taught to overcome bystander apathy and be trained to help others in emergency situations. 🧑💻 Procedure:Sample: 80 introductory psychology students. Conditions: Helping Film: Participants watched a 50-minute film explaining Latané and Darley's model of helping behavior, including reasons why people often don't help and simulations of classic studies. Helping Lecture: Participants attended a 50-minute lecture outlining the model and studies, without the simulations. Obesity and Emotion Lecture: A lecture on emotional factors in obesity, unrelated to helping behavior. Control Group: No exposure to any treatment.
After the film or lecture, participants completed a questionnaire to ensure they understood the material. Two weeks later, they participated in a second study, where a female confederate guided them to a room, where a male confederate pretended to be in need of help. The researchers measured whether the participant would intervene.
📊 Results:Helping Rates: Helping Film and Lecture Groups: 42.5% helped. Obesity and Emotion Lecture Group and Control Group: 25% helped. No Significant Differences between the film and lecture conditions. No Gender Differences in rates of helping.
✅ Evaluation:Strengths: Experimental Design: The study's experimental nature allows for cause-and-effect conclusions. Replicability: The study can be replicated to test the reliability of the findings. Ecological Validity: Despite being controlled, the study's scenario (emergency situation) was realistic. Practical Application: Supports the idea that teaching about helping behavior can increase prosocial actions.
Limitations: Sampling Bias: Only psychology students from the U.S. participated, limiting generalizability. Deception: The use of deception raises ethical concerns, although it was necessary to avoid participants’ expectations affecting the results. Short-Term Effect: The study only measured the effect two weeks after the intervention, so the long-term impact of the training is unclear. Limited Types of Helping: The study only examined helping in emergency situations, not other forms of prosocial behavior (e.g., intervening in theft or environmental actions).
Conclusion:The study suggests that teaching about helping behavior can increase the likelihood of helping in emergencies, but it is not clear how long this effect lasts or if it applies to non-emergency situations. |
Wedekind | See biological approach |
Zhou | Aim:To investigate whether the human steroids androstadienone (AND) and estratetraenol (EST) affect human sexual behavior, particularly in terms of gender perception. 🧑💻 Procedure:Sample: 96 healthy non-smokers, divided into 4 groups: Participants performed a point-light walker task (PLW), where they had to identify the sex of a stick figure in motion. Each group was exposed to either: The experiment was conducted on three consecutive days, with each participant exposed to one solution per day. The order of solutions was counterbalanced to control for order effects.
📊 Results:AND (androstadienone): EST (estratetraenol):
✅ Evaluation:Strengths: Experimental Design: The use of a manipulated independent variable (AND or EST exposure) and the measurement of behavior allows for a cause-and-effect relationship. Counterbalancing: Helps control for order effects, ensuring the results are not influenced by the order in which the solutions were presented.
Limitations: Generalizability: The study's sample was small, limited to non-smokers, and focused on specific groups based on gender and sexuality, making it difficult to generalize the results to a broader population. Replication Issues: A later study by Hare et al. (2017) failed to replicate Zhou's findings, suggesting the results may not be reliable. Pheromone Concentration: The concentrations of AND and EST used in this study were much higher than the amounts humans naturally secrete, which may not accurately reflect typical human behavior.
Conclusion:The study suggests that AND and EST may influence human sexual behavior, such as gender perception. However, the results need to be interpreted with caution due to issues with replicability and the unnatural pheromone concentrations used in the experiment. |
Montoya & Horton | Aim:Montoya and Horton (2004) aimed to investigate the role of cognitive evaluation in the similarity-attraction effect, proposing that similarity affects attraction in two stages: Attitudes imply information, guiding the cognitive evaluation of a person. Cognitive evaluation influences the attraction to the target.
Thus, cognitive evaluation mediates the relationship between similarity and attraction. 🧑💻 Procedure:Participants: 69 introductory psychology students from the University of North Carolina. Step 1: Participants completed an 11-item attitude survey on various topics (e.g., smoking, religion, money). Step 2: Participants were shown a personalized attitude survey from a partner, who was randomly assigned to one of three conditions: Similar: Shared similar attitudes. Dissimilar: Had dissimilar attitudes. Control: No survey shown.
Step 3: Participants completed two questionnaires: Cognitive evaluation: Measured perceptions of the partner's qualities (e.g., "My future interaction partner is probably good at everything that s/he does"). Interpersonal attraction: Measured the participant’s interest in getting to know the person better.
📊 Results:Participants were more attracted to similar partners, evaluated them more favorably, and viewed the information from similar attitudes as more positive. Cognitive evaluation was found to mediate the effect of similarity on attraction, suggesting that mental evaluations of the target’s quality influenced attraction.
Conclusion:The study concluded that attraction is more complex than just similarity. Cognitive evaluations of an individual are crucial mediators between similarity and attraction, adding a layer of cognitive processing to interpersonal attraction. ✅ Strengths:The research showed that cognitive evaluation predicts attraction, while similarity alone does not. This highlights the importance of cognitive evaluation in attraction, with similarity influencing attraction indirectly. External reliability: The study was replicated with related research, showing consistency in findings.
❌ Weaknesses:Generality: The findings may not apply to real-life relationships, as the study used a "phantom-other" (a hypothetical person), whereas real relationships provide additional information for cognitive evaluation (e.g., physical attractiveness, interaction). Cultural bias: The study’s use of achievement-oriented evaluation items may be biased towards individualist cultures, limiting the generalizability to collectivist cultures. Automatic vs. deliberate evaluations: The study raises questions about whether cognitive evaluations are automatic or deliberate, as biases (e.g., racial or gender biases) may influence evaluations unconsciously.
Methodological Considerations:The research had high external reliability due to related studies by the authors. The findings suggest that cognitive evaluation and interpersonal attraction are distinct constructs, addressing earlier theoretical debates.
In summary, Montoya & Horton (2004) propose that cognitive evaluation plays a key role in how similarity affects attraction, and that attraction involves more than just similarity—it involves a complex mental assessment of the other person's qualities. |
Dion | Aim:Dion et al (1972) aimed to test the halo effect, which is a cognitive bias where an overall positive impression (e.g., physical attractiveness) influences the perception of other traits. The study examined whether physically attractive people are assumed to have more positive personality traits and lead better lives (e.g., in relationships or careers) than unattractive individuals. 🧑💻 Procedure:Participants: 60 university students (30 males and 30 females) from an American university. Step 1: Participants were told the study was about "accuracy in people perception" and were compared to trained graduate students in "people perception." Step 2: Participants received three envelopes, each containing a photo of a person (one attractive, one average, one unattractive). Half received photos of the same gender, and the other half received opposite-gender photos. Step 3: They rated the individuals in the photos on 27 personality traits and then completed another survey rating which person was most likely to experience marital happiness, parental happiness, and occupational success.
📊 Results:These findings suggest that people viewed as attractive were judged more positively in various life domains, but surprisingly not in terms of being good parents. ✅ Conclusion:The study supports the halo effect, showing that physical attractiveness influences perceptions of other traits, such as personality, happiness, and success. The study suggests that people who are considered attractive are more likely to be seen as overall "better" in many life aspects. Strengths:Construct validity: The researchers ensured attractiveness was measured reliably by having 100 students rank the photos. Practical applications: The findings have been applied in areas like judicial leniency, where attractive individuals have been shown to be treated more favorably (e.g., in court sentencing).
Weaknesses:Deception: The study used deception to avoid demand characteristics, which could be seen as ethically problematic, though participants were debriefed afterward. Ecological validity: While the study may have high ecological validity in situations like online dating or job applications, it may not reflect how we judge people in face-to-face interactions. Reductionist: The study oversimplifies attraction, ignoring other factors (like emotional state) that may influence judgements. Replicability issues: Replications have shown inconsistent results. For instance, Dermer and Thiel (1975) found that unattractive individuals did not rate attractive people as highly, and some studies suggest attractive individuals may be seen as more egotistical.
Conclusion:Dion et al. (1972) demonstrated that the halo effect plays a significant role in how physical attractiveness impacts perceptions of other traits, but the study has limitations in terms of ecological validity, consistency, and ethical concerns. |
Moreland & Beach | Aim:Moreland and Beach (1992) aimed to investigate the effect of mere exposure (without interaction) on the development of attractiveness, familiarity, and similarity, to determine which factor(s) are most affected by repeated exposure. 🧑💻 Procedure:Participants: 130 undergraduate psychology students (63 men, 67 women) taking the same personality course. Stimuli: Four women (A, B, C, D), who were not college students but were dressed and looked similarly, were used as the stimuli. Woman A attended 0 classes Woman B attended 5 classes Woman C attended 10 classes Woman D attended 15 classes None of the women interacted with the students.
Task: After the course, participants were shown photos of the women and answered a questionnaire that assessed: Familiarity: “On a scale of 1-7, how familiar is this woman?” Attraction: “How likely is it that you would become friends?” Similarity: “How similar do you think you would be in your plans for the future if you got to know this woman?”
📊 Results:Exposure and Perceptions: As the number of classes attended by the woman increased, so did the participants’ ratings of familiarity, attraction, and similarity. Familiarity: Increased from 2.87 (0 visits) to 3.39 (10 visits), then slightly decreased to 3.15 (15 visits). Attraction: Increased from 3.62 (0 visits) to 4.38 (15 visits). Similarity: Increased from 1.88 (0 visits) to 2.23 (15 visits).
Strongest Correlation: The strongest correlation (r = 0.6) was found between attraction and perceived similarity. No Gender Differences: There were no significant differences between men and women in terms of the results.
✅ Conclusion:Exposure leads to attraction, which then leads to increased familiarity and perceived similarity. Moreland and Beach suggest that mere exposure primarily affects attraction, which then influences familiarity and similarity.
Key Findings:Repeated exposure to a person, without interaction, can increase feelings of familiarity, attraction, and perceived similarity. Attraction showed the largest increase with exposure, and there was a strong correlation between attraction and perceived similarity.
This study provides insight into how mere exposure, even without interaction, can influence the development of interpersonal attraction and perceptions of similarity. |
Buss | Aim: Buss (1990) aimed to investigate whether there are universal differences between male and female partner preferences across cultures. 🧑💻 Procedure: 📊 Results: ✅ Evaluation: Strengths: Weaknesses: Reductionist: The study focuses on biological factors and does not consider gender expectations or cultural influences that may affect mate choice. Ecological Validity: The study lacks ecological validity because ideal characteristics on paper may not align with real-life attraction.
Criticism: Socio-cultural perspective: Eagly and Wood (1999) criticized Buss, suggesting that cultural factors, rather than evolutionary ones, may explain the sex differences. They found that in more gender-equal cultures, the differences in preferences (e.g., earning potential and domestic skills) were smaller. Cognitive approach: There is a concern that people may not always be consciously aware of their preferences, meaning the study may not accurately reflect actual mate selection strategies.
Conclusion: While Buss’ study supports evolutionary theories with evidence of universal sex differences in mate selection, it also faces criticism regarding the influence of cultural and gender norms on these preferences, and the ecological validity of the findings. |
Collins & Miller | Aim: Collins and Miller (1994) aimed to investigate whether people prefer individuals who disclose more about their thoughts and feelings, compared to those who disclose less. 🧑💻 Method: 📊 Results: People who disclose intimate information about themselves are more liked than those who do not. Individuals tend to disclose more personal information to people they like. Conversely, when people disclose information to someone, they tend to like that person more.
📌 Conclusion: The researchers concluded that self-disclosure plays an important role in establishing and maintaining relationships. ✅ Strengths: ❌ Weaknesses: 🔍 Methodological Considerations: While the meta-analysis provides a broad synthesis of findings, it cannot establish causality. The relationship between self-disclosure and liking is inferred from statistical data, but more specific factors driving this relationship are not detailed.
⚖ Ethical Considerations: The study, like all psychological research, would have adhered to ethical guidelines regarding participant consent, confidentiality, and well-being during the original studies included in the meta-analysis.
|
Bradbury & Fincham | Aim:Bradbury and Fincham (1992) aimed to study the communication styles of couples and how they affect relationship satisfaction, focusing on causal attributions (why problems occur) and responsibility attributions (whose fault is it?) in relationships. 🧑💻 Procedure:Participants: 47 married or cohabiting couples, with an average marriage length of 8.5 years, were recruited via local media advertisements. All couples had not been to marriage counseling. Survey: Couples filled out a survey to assess marital satisfaction and identify the main issues in their relationships. Observation: Couples were observed while discussing a problem they both identified. Each partner was asked to explain the cause of the problem and who was responsible for it. The discussion took place in a laboratory setting, and the interaction was video recorded for later analysis. Coding: Two trained researchers independently coded the video to identify patterns of communication (relationship-enhancing vs. distress-maintaining).
📊 Results:Couples with lower marital satisfaction exhibited distress-maintaining communication patterns, where they attributed problems to their partner's intentional actions and selfish motivations. These couples were also more hostile and rejected their partner’s positive attempts to resolve the issue. Couples with higher satisfaction showed relationship-enhancing patterns, where they attributed negative behaviors to situational factors and gave their partners credit for positive actions.
📌 Conclusion:The study found that negative communication patterns (blaming the partner, attributing negative intentions) contribute to marital dissatisfaction, while positive communication patterns (attributing problems to situational factors and acknowledging partner's good qualities) enhance relationship satisfaction. ✅ Strengths:❌ Weaknesses:The study correlates communication patterns with satisfaction but does not establish causality, raising issues of bidirectional ambiguity (does communication cause dissatisfaction, or is dissatisfaction causing poor communication?). Mental health (such as depression) was not measured, but could influence communication styles. The couples discussed different levels of serious problems, which may affect the generalizability of the findings. Sampling bias: The study only involved couples from a Western cultural context, which may limit the applicability of the results to other cultures. Order effects: The administration of the questionnaire before the interaction may have influenced the observed behavior, as the study was not counterbalanced.
🔍 Methodological Considerations: |
Gottman | Aim:Gottman (1999) aimed to investigate the role of both positive and negative affect (emotions) on marital satisfaction and the risk of divorce. He examined how communication styles—both verbal and nonverbal—contribute to the success or failure of relationships. 🧑💻 Procedure:Participants: 124 newlywed couples were recruited through a newspaper advertisement. Couples were married for the first time within six months and were childless. Marital Adjustment Test (MAT): Couples were assessed yearly for six years to measure marital satisfaction. Study Setup: Couples discussed a persistent problem in their marriage for 15 minutes. Physiological measures (e.g., heart rate, skin conductivity) were recorded before and during the interaction. A video recording captured the interaction, and the Specific Affect Coding System (SPAFF) was used to analyze facial expressions, tone, and speech content. Active listening, where one partner validates the other’s feelings during conflict, was also measured.
📊 Results:High-intensity negative affect (such as belligerence, defensiveness, and contempt) from both spouses predicted divorce. A wife’s low-intensity negative affect (whining, sadness, disgust, stonewalling) was a predictor of divorce, but this was not the case for husbands. The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse (criticism, contempt, defensiveness, and stonewalling) were key destructive communication patterns leading to relationship breakdown. Surprisingly, the Active Listening Model (where partners validate each other's feelings) did not predict positive outcomes. Couples rarely demonstrated active listening or validated each other's feelings in conflict, even in successful marriages.
📌 Conclusion:Gottman concluded that communication patterns, particularly negative emotions (such as contempt and belligerence), play a crucial role in determining whether a relationship will survive or break down. His findings emphasized that the way couples handle conflict and communicate with each other, rather than simply resolving problems, is a key factor in relationship stability. ✅ Strengths:Data triangulation: Gottman used multiple data sources (physiological measures, behavioral observations, and self-reports) to enhance the validity of his findings. Inter-coder reliability: Multiple independent coders rated the couples’ interactions, increasing internal validity. The SPAFF coding system has been shown to have high reliability in assessing communication behaviors.
❌ Weaknesses:Self-selected sampling: The couples volunteered for the study, which could introduce selection bias, as those who are more motivated to work on their relationships may differ from others. Reductionist approach: The study focused primarily on communication styles, potentially oversimplifying the complex factors influencing relationships. Other variables, such as external stressors, were not considered. Cultural limitations: The study may lack cross-cultural validity, as communication styles may differ significantly across cultures, and the SPAFF coding system was not tested with a diverse sample. Internal validity concerns: The use of longitudinal data over six years raises questions about other influencing factors that could not be fully controlled.
🔍 Evaluation:Gottman’s research contributed significantly to understanding the importance of communication in relationships, particularly the role of negative emotions. However, the study's focus on communication alone might overlook other critical factors that could contribute to marital success or failure, such as economic pressures, personal values, or external stressors. |
Felmlee | Aim:Felmlee aimed to investigate the Fatal Attraction Theory, which suggests that the qualities that initially attract us to a partner may eventually be the reasons the relationship ends. The study sought to determine if couples break up due to the same qualities that originally drew them together. 🧑💻 Procedure:Participants: 301 university students (both male and female) were surveyed. Method: Participants were asked to reflect on their most recent romantic relationship that ended. They listed the qualities that initially attracted them to their partner and then identified which of these qualities led to the breakup. The goal was to understand if the qualities that were once appealing turned out to be problematic over time.
📊 Results:88 out of 301 cases (almost 30%) showed fatal attraction break-ups, where initial attractive traits later led to relationship dissolution. Three common patterns of fatal attraction were identified: Fun to foolish: A partner who was initially fun and humorous may be seen as immature or unable to take things seriously over time. Strong to domineering: A confident, self-assured partner may later appear uncompromising, authoritarian, or even abusive. Spontaneous to unpredictable: A partner who was spontaneous and carefree may later be perceived as unreliable or lacking commitment, leading to frustration and possible cheating.
📌 Conclusion:Felmlee concluded that fatal attraction could indeed contribute to the end of relationships, as initially appealing traits may become sources of conflict as the relationship develops. ✅ Strengths:❌ Weaknesses:Reductionism: The study oversimplifies the reasons for relationship breakdowns by only focusing on attraction-related traits, ignoring other factors (e.g., external stressors, communication issues). Self-report bias: Using questionnaires can lead to issues like demand characteristics, where participants may not fully disclose their true feelings or provide socially desirable answers. Sampling bias: The sample consisted only of university students, which may not represent the general population. Young people may look for different relationship qualities than older individuals, and their relationships may be more short-term or less committed.
🔍 Evaluation:While Felmlee’s study provides valuable insight into how attraction can lead to relationship breakdowns, it overlooks a broader range of potential factors that influence relationship dynamics. Furthermore, the use of self-report data and a limited sample size may affect the validity and generalizability of the findings. |
Knowt
Note
Studied by 11 people
