Chapter 8: Human Relationships
Chapter Outline
Introduction
Essential Questions
What factors are involved in the formation of relationships?
How does communication play a role in relationships?
What factors are involved in relationship success and relationship failure?
What factors influence group dynamics?
How does conflict originate, and how can it be resolved?
How do we decide whether to intervene or not when we are a bystander?
What factors influence and promote prosocial behaviour?
After studying this chapter, you should be able to:
Myths and Misconceptions
Opposites attract
Psychology researchers Julie and John Gottman have stated that the evidence is more complex because of their research. They found that partners are more likely to get along if they are similar regarding the core aspects of their relationship. For example, suppose both partners feel it is good to express negative emotions. In that case, they are more likely to have a successful relationship, but if one partner feels it should be bottled up and the other does not, this will likely cause conflict. However, Gottman and Gottman also found that relationships can tolerate some differences between partners but only for small things like having different hobbies.
Feelings are mutual in friendships
Research at Tel Aviv University in 2016 with 84 university students showed the surprising result that if you consider someone to be a good friend, that friend, in turn, may not feel the same way. The study showed a mutual feeling of positivity in only 53% of the paired ratings. These results imply that we can be poor at judging the quality of our friendships.
Men usually perpetrate physical abuse in relationships
A common misconception is that domestic violence victims are usually women. However, survey data shown here by an organisation called Parity UK indicates that male victim prevalence reached around 40% in England and Wales in the late 2000s. In addition, the organisation SAFE in the USA states that 1 in 7 men is likely to be abused by their partner in their lifetime.
Introduction
The study of human relationships has an incredibly long history. Before the birth of modern psychology, as we know it today, many attempts have been made to analyse intellectually the factors that characterise our relationships. Philosophers in classical Greece debated the fundamentals of love, for example, but it was not until a more scientific approach to analysing nature was adopted that research into relationships started to accelerate. One fundamental milestone in relationships research was Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, which was put forward in the mid-19th century. Darwin proposed that certain criteria are critical in reproductive behaviour, thus increasing the likelihood that genes would be passed on to the next generation if these criteria were fulfilled. A few decades after Darwin’s theory came to another milestone in the study of relationships when Sigmund Freud theorised, for example, about the psychology of human sexuality and the role of the unconscious in our relationships with others. The revolutionary ideas of Darwin and Freud were instrumental in instigating new ways of thinking about relationships, so much so that modern relationships research now uses an array of research methods. These include scientific experimental methods, qualitative methods such as self-report techniques, and cross-cultural and anthropological research.
The Human Relationships option in IB psychology looks at the dynamic nature of human relationships and is broken down into three main topic areas. The first topic is personal relationships. Within this section, you learn about the factors involved in forming relationships, how communication plays a role in personal relationships, which factors are more likely to make a relationship succeed and which may cause it to break down. Following on from this topic area, you will consider research into group dynamics and how cooperation and competition and prejudice and discrimination can influence such dynamics. In addition, you will analyse research into the origins of conflict and how conflict can be resolved in this topic. The final topic is social responsibility, and in this section, you will learn what makes us more likely to intervene and help others when we are in their vicinity. Furthermore, helping behaviour will be explored further in this topic by assessing research into prosocial behaviour and considering ways that we can promote prosocial acts.
At this stage of the course, you have now completed your study of the core material regarding the biological, cognitive and sociocultural approaches to explaining behaviour. However, these three approaches are also fundamental in studying the Human Relationships option; hence you will be expected to be able to describe and evaluate psychological research in this area from these three viewpoints.
Biological Approach
Psychologists who investigate the biological foundations of relationships have focused predominantly on the role of genetics, particularly in the formation of relationships where Darwin’s theory of evolution has been particularly influential. This type of research is part of a relatively new branch of psychology known as evolutionary psychology.
Cognitive Approach
A major aspect of relationships research is how thought processes can influence how we interact with others in our social environment. You have already come across schema theory in the unit on the cognitive approach. In this unit, you will therefore revisit the role of this theory in how we conduct our relationships.
Sociocultural Approach
Investigating social and cultural factors in relationships is another major research field in this area of psychology. Social factors include the influence of role models in how we interact with others, and cultural factors include intercultural differences in relationship formation and maintenance, for example.
Ask YourselfWhich of the approaches do you think is most influential in our relationships? Or do you think they all play an equal role?
As well as considering the approaches in your study of human relationships, it is also required that you assess research in terms of its ethical considerations and credibility and trustworthiness. Furthermore, an appreciation of the sensitivity of the issues raised by the research in this unit is necessary.
1. Personal Relationships
1.1 Formation of Personal Relationships
Biological factors in the formation of personal relationships
As mentioned in the introduction, Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution was a significant step forward in relationships research. It influenced scientists to consider the role of evolutionary factors in how we form personal relationships. Both Darwin and his supporters at that time were convinced that characteristics that promoted survival were passed on from one generation to the next, but they were not able to understand the mechanisms involved in this transmission because they did not have at their disposal the scientific techniques to investigate such mechanisms. However, as technology progressed, later research was able to show that genes were the key to the transmission of traits across generations; hence the Darwinian viewpoint is now seen as a biological theory.
In forming a relationship, a fundamental initial stage is the degree of attraction between potential mates. However, according to Darwin’s theory, males and females have evolved to use different mechanisms to assess what is attractive in a potential partner. This difference is due to the separate challenges faced by males and females in the early ancestral environment, known as the EEA (the environment of evolutionary adaptation). Parental investment is one example of where this difference is demonstrated. In contrast to males, females must undergo long pregnancies and provide care for each child they have hence their needs are centred around gaining resources to support them during these periods of not only need but also vulnerability. In assessing the attractiveness of a potential partner, therefore, a female will focus on whether the male will stay with her and provide resources and support.
In contrast, the parental investment of males is lower as they do not have to endure a long pregnancy hence they have more freedom to reproduce with a wider range of females. Nevertheless, the male needs some indication that a female is ‘fit’ to carry his genetic legacy into the next generation and therefore assesses females on their fitness to reproduce. Males will therefore look for signs in potential partners related to age and healthiness, e.g., young age, good skin, toned body. Males would also seek signs that a female has not engaged in sex with other male partners so that a previous male’s sperm will not supplant his sperm. Therefore, males and females seem to show differences in terms of what main factors influence the initial stages of a relationship. The study below by Buss (1989) addressed whether such differences constituted a universal in psychology. A universal is a characteristic in psychology that is impervious to social and cultural influences and common to humans worldwide. Buss (1989) therefore, sought to explore the existence of a universal in relationship formation around the world.
Focus on Research
Buss (1989) made predictions about gender differences in mate choice based on Darwin’s theory. The participants in the study were over 10,000 individuals from 37 different cultures across six continents and five islands. Due to the vast scale of the study, differences in sampling techniques often occurred because of local variation, for example, if the location was rural or urban and whether polygamy, monogamy or cohabiting was practised. The mean age of the participants was 23.5 years for males and 22.5 years for females. The data was collected by native citizens of each country sampled. Each of the native collaborators in the research team was asked to gather as diverse a sample as possible. The questionnaires were then mailed to Buss in the USA for analysis.
The procedure required participants to complete a questionnaire that consisted of:
Biographical data (information about age, sex, religion, marital status).
Marriage information (age at which the participant preferred to marry, the age of spouse and children desired).
A four-point rating scale (3 = indispensable; 0 = irrelevant/unimportant) where participants had to rate 18 characteristics that might influence the formation of relationships (e.g. good financial prospects, good looks, chastity and ambition).
Next, the participants had to rank 13 characteristics (e.g. good earning potential, physically attractive) that indicated how desirable the characteristics are in someone they might want to marry. The highest score (i.e. 13) was given to the most desirable characteristic.
The procedure was undertaken in many different languages and each of the translators was asked to use gender-neutral terminology. For example, ‘physically attractive’ was used instead of ‘beautiful’ and ‘handsome’.
The results of the study indeed indicated that some aspects of relationships were universal across cultures. For example, there was evidence that males across all 37 cultures preferred a younger partner suggesting this is a good indicator of the ability to reproduce successfully. In addition, again, in all 37 samples, males valued ‘good looks’ more highly than females. This indicates that males will form relationships with women they perceive as attractive. In terms of financial prospects and ambition in a partner, females in 36 out of the 37 cultures preferred these qualities in a prospective male partner. Spain was the exception, but the results were in the direction shown for the other 36 cultures.
Buss et al., therefore, concluded that there was an evolutionary explanation for forming relationships with potential intimate partners. Specifically, the different gender basis for mate selection reflects the differences in the reproductive capacity of males and females. So males prefer mates that are younger (i.e. more fertile) and attractive, while females prefer males with good earning potential and ambition (i.e. able to support pregnancy and offspring).
Further research by Buss et al. (1992) provides additional support for these differences in males and females in terms of mate choice. Buss et al. asked participants to imagine their partners being unfaithful to them. The type of scenario was manipulated by the researchers in that participants were asked to imagine their partners being sexually unfaithful and were asked to imagine their partners being emotionally unfaithful. The level of distress was measured by both self-report and physiological measures (pulse rate, facial muscle movement and sweat response). The results showed that males tended to be more distressed about sexual infidelity, whereas females tended to be more distressed about emotional infidelity. These results can be interpreted in terms of evolutionary theory as they suggest that the males are more likely to be distressed about sexual infidelity because they are concerned that their sperm will be replaced by another man’s, thus reducing the chances that their genes will be passed on into the next generation. However, for females, their distress about emotional infidelity stems from their fears that if a male partner forms an emotional attachment to another female, this increases the likelihood that her mate will re-distribute his resources. Therefore, this study provides some evidence for the fact that males and females, in general, have gender-specific differences in terms of attractiveness judgements.
Ask YourselfDo you think an evolutionary explanation of how personal relationships form is too simplistic? If so, why? If not, why not? Do you think such research (asking for a participant to imagine their partner being unfaithful) can be considered ethical? Justify your viewpoint.
Cultural factors in the formation of personal relationships
Buss’s (1989) study remains one of the largest cross-cultural studies in evolutionary psychology, and it was instrumental in establishing that forming a relationship does appear to have evolutionary influences. However, it is important to acknowledge that this study also revealed some cross-cultural differences in relationship formation. One example was the importance of chastity. Buss found that the value placed on chastity varied substantially across cultures. Participants from China, India, Indonesia, Taiwan and Israel placed a high value on this trait when forming a relationship with a potential mate. However, most Western European participants viewed chastity as ‘irrelevant or unimportant’ in a potential partner, i.e., participants from Norway, Sweden, Finland, Netherlands, West Germany, and France. Therefore, the role of chastity in women appeared to be more highly valued by males in some societies, particularly in more traditional societies with more clearly defined gender roles.
This finding contradicts the evolutionary proposition that males will seek females showing evidence of faithfulness so that males do not mistakenly raise another man’s child. Buss (1989) does propose, however, that as chastity is not directly observable, it is more difficult to establish how far it plays a role in faithfulness detection when males are seeking a female partner. Furthermore, sexual behaviour in females varies in terms of their sexual freedom across cultures. Hence, in cultures where this freedom is accepted and has become the norm, this may now override evolutionary tendencies for males to prefer faithfulness in females. Another possibility is that this evolutionary tendency still exists in men, but with contraception being widely available in some cultures, it is possible to argue that the use of contraception by females displaces the need for males to think about faithfulness and the dangers of raising another man’s child as his own.
Social and cognitive factors in the formation of personal relationships
In contrast to an evolutionary explanation of relationship formation, some psychology researchers have argued that our childhood experiences are more likely to play a role. Specifically, research on attachment has shown that the type of attachment we form with our main caregiver plays a significant role in our later adult relationships. One of the most influential figures in this was John Bowlby. After several years investigating children’s attachment, he proposed a theory of attachment in 1951, which has been revised and improved numerous times. The theory argues that the belief babies and toddlers form emotional attachments to familiar caregivers from about 6–30 months of age. Events that interfere with attachment (e.g. abrupt separation or inability of carers to provide sensitive or consistent interactions) can have both short-term and long-term consequences for the child. Bowlby used a cognitive perspective by arguing that the child develops ‘attachment schemas’ that guide early attachment and later relationships because of these early attachments. You have already studied schema theory in Chapter 5. According to Bowlby, if the caregiver is attentive and responsive, the child feels security, love and confidence and develops a positive relationship schema, but a negative schema develops if the caregiver is distant and cold. Bowlby called the relationship schema the ‘internal working model’, which models expectations of behaviour and caregiving in all subsequent relationships. However, we can see that Bowlby’s theory is not just a cognitive theory: there is an interaction between cognitive and social processes concerning attachment because the social interactions with the primary caregiver affect the construction of attachment schemas in the child.
By the mid-1980s, researchers had begun to investigate the influence of attachment processes in adulthood. Hazan and Shaver (1987) explored Bowlby's ideas in the context of romantic relationships. According to Hazan and Shaver, the attachment styles developed in infancy continue to influence adults' relationship style and social life due to the important role of internal working models. Hazan and Shaver asked people to recall their childhood experiences. They found that adults who indicated that their childhood attachments had been secure described their romantic relationships as affectionate and caring. In support of Hazan and Shaver’s findings, Fraley and Shaver (2000) found that adults who had experienced a secure, positive attachment as a child tended to be more satisfied in their relationships than adults with an early insecure negative attachment. Secure adult relationships are characterized by trust and commitment and tend to be long-lasting relationships. Such research on adult relationships, therefore, suggests that early attachment experiences are a critical factor in relationship formation: if you have suffered a negative attachment, you may be wary and nervous about beginning a relationship.
Focus on Research
Simons et al. (2014) carried out further research into the correlation between experiences in childhood and the success of later adult romantic relationships. Using a longitudinal study, the researchers sought to assess how far parenting style in childhood was linked to hostile and aggressive interactions with romantic partners in adulthood.
The researchers recruited participants who were also taking part in an ongoing longitudinal study called the Family and Community Health Study (FACHS). This study took place in Georgia and Iowa and aimed to establish the long-term effects of family and neighbourhood relationships on health and development in African American families. The participants in the FACHS study had already been tested at ages 10.5, 12.5, 15, 18, 20 and 23 years, and of the 897 individuals who started the study, 699 were still taking part. The study by Simons et al. involved assessing the FACHS data from unmarried participants in a romantic relationship in this sample of 699 participants. This produced a sample of 345 participants, of whom 202 were female, and 143 were male.
The sample’s data from the FACHS study was subjected to further analysis by Simons et al. The results showed that parental behaviour with regard to parenting style and modelling of behaviour had some influence on the style of their children’s behaviour in their adult romantic relationships. More specifically, a secure childhood attachment fostered by supportive parenting was correlated with warm and loving behaviour in adult relationships. Conversely, there was some evidence that poor attachment experiences in childhood were correlated with hostility and aggression towards adult partners. Therefore, it is possible to argue that a romantic relationship could be affected in the formation stage by such hostility and aggression, which could dissuade a potential partner from wanting to continue with the relationship.
As well as assessing childhood experiences, some researchers have explored how cognition influences relationship formation. One example of a study into relationship cognition was conducted by Adeagbo (2015) on a sample of gay men in South Africa. Using a longitudinal approach, Adeagbo assessed 10 interracial gay male couples aged 23-58 years old over eight months. During this period, the men underwent semi-structured interviews on an individual basis. Questions were asked about a range of aspects of their daily lives as part of a couple. Some questions were specifically aimed at assessing factors in relationship formation. The study revealed that resources (e.g., money) and personal characteristics (e.g., age, physique) were less important in relationship formation and showed instead that how a potential partner is perceived was most influential. For example, if a person thinks that a potential partner shows attributes such as kindness and generosity, they would be more likely to initiate a relationship.
1.2 Role of Communication
In this section we look at the role of communication in relationships. Communication is a fundamental factor in whether relationships are likely to be successful. You know from your own experiences that some friendships, for example, are enduring and last a long time, while others might start strongly and then fade away (or end somewhat dramatically). In this section, we will examine the role of communication in relationships, again focusing on the biological, cognitive and sociocultural processes that could be involved.
Social factors in relationship communication
Relationships necessarily involve social activity as they are primarily seen as interactions between individuals in a social environment. Here is an example of such an interaction:
Imagine this interchange: Each day for years and years, a husband comes home from work and his wife asks: ‘How was your day?’. The response is typically: ‘Good, thank-you’. During their time together, the couple has developed this script for interacting. Although the interchange is mundane, any change to this is quite noticeable. Imagine if one day the wife failed to ask the question or if the husband said ‘Why do you ask?’. This is not a standard part of the communication script and would indicate that there might be some disturbance in their relationship.
Therefore, social signals provide cues to the receiver about whether the relationship is progressing satisfactorily. Some social psychologists have attempted to clarify which types of strategies are most relevant to relationship success. For example, Canary and Stafford (1994) identified five social strategies that facilitate relationship success and help maintain the relationship. These are listed in the box below.
Positivity: Being cheerful and engaging with your partner.
Openness: Discussing joint history, making disclosures about yourself.
Assurances: Offering comfort and support, affirming commitment to the relationship, checking on the partner’s wellbeing.
Social Networking: Engaging with friends and family of the partner.
Sharing tasks: Engaging in mundane tasks together, such as washing the dishes and hanging the clothing out, facilitates communication opportunities.
In line with the strategies identified by Canary and Stafford (1994), Gottman et al. (2003) argued that positive communication is one of the most important factors to help maintain relationships. They provided a 5:1 ratio of positivity to negativity. This means that any negative statement cannot be counteracted with a single positive statement. Instead, any negative statement requires at least five positive statements.
Other researchers, however, have drawn attention to the fact that gender differences need to be considered when analysing social interactions in relationships. A leading researcher in this field is Deborah Tannen, a linguist who has authored several books on communication in relationships. Her work has highlighted some differences in communication styles between men and women. An extract from some of her writing is presented in the box below:
“Can’t We Talk?” by Deborah Tannen (condensed from You Just Don’t Understand, 2007)
A married couple were driving in their car when the wife turned to her husband and asked: “Would you like to stop for a coffee?”
“No, thanks,” he answered truthfully. So they didn’t stop.
The result? The wife, who had indeed wanted to stop, became annoyed because she felt her preference had not been considered. The husband, seeing his wife was angry, became frustrated. Why didn’t she just say what she wanted?
Unfortunately, he failed to see that his wife was asking the question not to get an instant decision, but to begin a negotiation. And the woman didn’t realize that when her husband said no, he was just expressing his preference, not making a ruling. When a man and woman interpret the simple interchange in such conflicting ways, it’s no wonder they can find themselves in conflict with each other.
Most of Tannen’s work adopts an observational methodology when investigating such interactions as that outlined above. Using the data from a large number of observations, Tannen (2007) argues that communication styles do indeed differ between men and women. Without the understanding and knowledge of these communication differences, there can be problems in maintaining a relationship. Tannen identifies several key differences between men and women and these are listed below.
Status vs. Support: Men are taught to use conversation as a way to achieve something or to prevent people from pushing them around, whereas women use language as a way to exchange confirmation and support.
Independence vs. Intimacy: Men use language to convey a sense of independence and strength, whereas women will often use language to convey a sense of intimacy and closeness.
Advice vs. Understanding: Men communicate to provide advice and help solve a situation, whereas women often use language to convey understanding. This can lead to disagreements when a woman wants support and understanding in a situation and a male wants to resolve or ‘fix’ the issue.
Information vs. Feelings: Women often use language to express their feelings, whereas men often use language to express information. A woman may frequently express her thoughts to her partner and feel rejected when he doesn’t share the same details. To avoid issues and conflict, it is important that men learn to understand a woman’s desire to talk and for women not to feel rejected when a man cannot express intimate thoughts.
Orders vs. Proposals: Women often try to persuade people to do things with indirect requests. However, some men find this indirect approach confrontational and will avoid engaging in such a request.
Conflict vs. Compromise: Some people, typically women, try to avoid direct conflict by
compromising on what they want. However, this approach can often lead to resentment and disappointment. It is important to be able to express one’s desires in a relationship.
Tannen concludes therefore, that learning the nuances of a person’s communication style in social interactions can be beneficial in maintaining a relationship.
Biological factors in relationship communication
As you saw in the previous section, observing interactions between people can be a useful means of determining how social factors feature in successful relationships. However, research has also been conducted into the biological mechanisms influencing our relationships. Such mechanisms can be chemical and, indeed, in the biological approach to explaining behaviour, you learned about how pheromones seem to influence male/female communication at an unconscious level when you studied Wedekind et al.’s (1995) research. Wedekind et al.’s findings suggested that mating behaviour appears to be affected by pheromones in sweat because they indicate the similarity of immune systems in a potential partner. Wedekind et al therefore concluded that as females tended to prefer males with dissimilar immune systems, they may be more willing to mate with them, thus showing how unconscious biological communication mechanisms may be influential at the start of a relationship. There may be an evolutionary foundation to this finding because mating with someone dissimilar in terms of their immune system implies that they are also likely to be genetically different, a factor that reduces the risk of congenital disabilities in offspring.
Communication patterns within family relationships also seem to be influenced by evolutionary biological factors. One theory in this area of research is family communication patterns theory, which was proposed by McLeod and Chaffee (1972). The theory is based on the concept of shared social reality which exists in a family when the family’s thinking patterns agree. This helps to increase understanding and reduce conflict. Some researchers have proposed that achieving a shared social reality has an evolutionary function. For example, Rueter and Koerner’s (2008) study provided some evidence of this in their analysis of family communication in biological and adopted children across a range of families. This study is outlined below.
Focus on Research
Rueter and Koerner (2008) aimed to investigate whether negative family communication patterns would have a more adverse effect on adopted children than biological children in terms of their social adjustment. This study recruited 592 families from the Minnesota area in the USA who were already taking part in a longitudinal study on how siblings influenced drug and alcohol use. The families consisted of two parents, a target adolescent (the child who would be investigated in Rueter and Koerner’s study) and a younger sibling. In 35% of the families, both children were biologically related to the parents, in 17% of the families the target adolescent was adopted and in 48% of the families, both children were adopted.
Each family underwent a range of tests in a laboratory-based setting including a 5-minute taped video of the family’s interactions, surveys and interviews. In 69% of the families, a teacher at the target adolescent’s school rated the adolescent’s behaviour at school. Two of the main measures in the study were conversation orientation and conformity orientation. Conversation orientation is a measure of spontaneous interactions within a family and, according to Rueter and Koerner, helps to establish a shared social reality. Conformity orientation measures how far attitudes are shared within a family. Parental authority figures usually influence these attitudes to create social reality within a family.
The study results showed that target adolescents (biological and adopted) were more likely to be well-adjusted if their families regularly used conversation and conformity. However, adopted target adolescents were more vulnerable to being less well-adjusted than biological target adolescents if the families were high in conformity, i.e., very protective, or low in both measures, i.e., laissez-faire families. These results suggest that positive family communication helps both adopted and biological children, but adopted children are more adversely affected by negative family communication than biological children. According to Koerner and Floyd (2010), these results suggest that biologically-related family members are more likely to shared similar inherited thinking patterns than non-biologically related members so conversation is less important in establishing a shared social reality. Therefore biological children are more resilient to negative family communication. From an evolutionary perspective, this makes sense because inherited thinking patterns cement the family group thus helping to ensure their survival.
Cognitive factors in relationship communication
An influential theory in cognitive psychology is attribution theory, initially proposed by Heider (1958). The theory's fundamental assumption is that we try to make sense of our social world by using information we receive through our senses to explain what is happening around us. Heider suggested that one way in which we try to explain our experiences is through the process of internal attribution where the cause of behaviour is due to an internal factor such as personality. For example, if someone we know ignores us in the street, we may explain their behaviour using an internal attribution such as ‘they are a very rude person’. However, we could also explain their behaviour with what Heider termed an external attribution where behaviour is due to an event outside a person’s control. In the above example, the person may have ignored us because they simply did not see us. As we can see, mistaken attributions could cause issues when we see that person another time as we may blame them for something they were unaware of. Consequently, this could cause future communication problems with that person.
Several researchers have conducted investigations into internal and external attribution in romantic relationships. More recently, Stephanou (2012) researched attributional factors in adult romantic relationships in young adults and this study is summarised below.
Focus on Research
To assess attribution in romantic relationships, Stephanou (2012) recruited a sample of 386 undergraduate and postgraduate students (aged 18-25 years) from a range of six Greek universities (176 male, 210 female). The length of their current relationship ranged from six months to 3.5 years. Stephanou used the Causal Dimension Scale II to measure the students' attributional behaviour, a well-tested questionnaire designed by McAuley et al. (1992) for this purpose. Before completing the scale, the participants rated their satisfaction with their current relationship by completing four questions on a scale of 1-7 so that the researchers could categorise the students’ relationships in terms of whether they were ‘good’ or ‘bad’. Participants in their university departments then completed the Causal Dimension Scale II scale.
With regard to the results for those students in good relationships, they tended to attribute the success of the relationship to internal factors both within themselves and within their partner. These internal factors included good communication, understanding, honesty and love. In contrast, the students who perceived themselves as part of a bad relationship demonstrated external attributions such as lack of control of the situation and blaming their partner’s behaviour. These findings have implications for communication within romantic relationships because partners in positive relationships who have an internal attributional style are likely to communicate more effectively than those in negative relationships with external attributional styles.
Cultural factors in relationship communication
A considerable amount of research has been dedicated to studying cultural factors in human communication in different types of relationships. The result of this endeavour has been that several communicative behaviours have been shown to differ across cultures. For example, Sanchez-Burks, Bartel and Blount (2009) researched American workplace communication patterns in Latino and non-Latino employees. The communication measure used was behavioural mirroring, a non-verbal behaviour in which the receiver mimics physical movements such as cupping your chin. Using confederates at the participants’ workplace, it was found that US Latinos became more anxious compared to non-Latinos when there was a lack of behavioural mirroring in the receiver. This study therefore demonstrated differences in cultural sensitivity to such non-verbal communication cues and suggests that the role of different types of communication varies according to our cultural background.
Ask YourselfReflecting on your own experiences, are there any communication behaviours that you have come across that show cultural differences?
1.3 Explanations for Why Relationships Change or End
Relationship breakdown is a common aspect of our everyday lives and psychologists have put forward different explanations for why such breakdowns occur. Therefore, this section focuses on addressing why relationships might change or end. It is important to remember that we need to move beyond descriptive models that look at the nature of relationships and investigate why they might change. In other words, what are the reasons behind the changing nature of relationships?
Social factors in why relationships change or end
According to Kurdek (1991), social factors such as interpersonal issues between couples in romantic relationships can contribute to a relationship breakdown. Kurdek identified communication problems and incompatibility between the partners as some of the interpersonal reasons why relationships might end. There is a summary of this research below.
Focus on Research
Kurdek (1991) aimed to investigate the reasons why homosexual relationships dissolve. The participants in the study were 13 couples. These couples had been involved in a longitudinal study of gay and lesbian relationships but had separated during the study. The participants were asked to complete an open-ended survey that investigated the reasons behind their break-up. The responses were coded and analyzed and then grouped into the following categories (in order of size):
• Communication problems
• Partner problems (such as substance dependency)
• Sexual issues
• Self-identity issues/fusion (becoming too close and losing individual identity)
• Incompatibility
• Control
Kurdek concluded that of all these issues, a communication breakdown was the major issue in the dissolution of homosexual relationships. These results indicate therefore that interpersonal communication factors are important in relationship breakdown. It should also be noted that Kurdek argued that this conclusion is very similar to the findings of research into heterosexual relationship breakdowns.
Biological factors in why relationships change or end
One factor that can play a role in the breakdown of relationships could be the personalities of the partners. It has been argued that aspects of our personality have biological foundations. For example, Dina et al. (2004) linked a chromosome region called 8p to individual differences in anxiety. Furthermore, DeYoung et al. (2010) found evidence for individual differences in brain structure contributing to personality style. For example, they found that agreeableness was linked to increased volume of cortex in the posterior cingulate cortex and neuroticism with an increased volume in the right dorsomedial prefrontal cortex and parts of the left medial temporal lobe. Therefore, these two studies represent a small sample of evidence for biological substrates of personality and can be said to predispose individuals to act in their own unique way in terms of their personality. Duck (1985) argued that predisposing personality factors could present background instability and resentment about relationships. In terms of DeYoung et al.’s study as an example therefore, this may predispose individuals with an increased volume in the right dorsomedial prefrontal cortex to higher levels of neuroticism, a term used in psychological research to describe people who are more prone to jealousy, anger issues, depression, and anxiety, for example. This could then create background instability and contribute to relationship breakdown. Ultimately, such anatomical brain research is still in its infancy but it shows that individual differences in anatomy could affect personality type which in turn could affect the success of relationship.
Nevertheless, the empirical evidence on the role of personality factors is not always clear cut hence the conclusions about how far anatomical differences contribute to the role personality plays in relationship breakdown remain tentative. Lehnart and Neyer (2006), for example, studied personality factors involved in relationships. The sample of young adults in this investigation (N = 133 stayed with the same partner and N = 92 changed partners) were studied for eight years. Lehnart and Neyer found that personality traits were not an important predictor of a relationship change. Instead, they found that dissatisfaction with the relationship was the most important predictor of change within the relationship. Interestingly, they found that a partner perceived as being ‘dependable’ (rather than dependent) was an important protective factor for the relationship continuation.
Cognitive factors in why relationships change or end
Some researchers attempting to explain why relationships change or break up have focused instead on the type of thinking that partners use to assess whether it is worth staying in a relationship. One popular notion in this area is that partners actively use cognitive analysis of their relationships daily to assess the benefits and costs of remaining with their partner. An early theory called social exchange theory was proposed by Thibaut and Kelley (1959) that suggested that partners use a profit and loss method of thinking to weigh up how they feel about a relationship. Profit indicators could be financial support from a partner and having regular physical contact, for example. In contrast, a loss indicator could include investing more time in the relationship than the other partner and thus feeling resentment. Evidence for partners thinking in such terms about their relationship can be seen in the study by Rusbult and Martz (1995) in which women in abusive relationships were interviewed when they entered a shelter for protection. They found that when factors such as financial security and having children with their partner strongly outweighed factors like having little money and having nowhere to go, the women were more likely to return to an abusive partner.
However, social exchange theory was criticised because it did not consider the concept of equity, i.e., fairness. Walster, Walster and Berscheid (1978) therefore proposed equity theory as an alternative to social exchange theory. Therefore, in their model, a relationship that is perceived as less equitable or unfair is more likely to break down. Equity theory also helps to explain why some relationships that from the outside look unequal in terms of profit and loss, may be perceived as fair by the partners themselves. For example, if one partner is doing a lot of housework compared to the other partner, this may be perceived as equitable if the partner doing the housework is satisfied with the situation. This satisfaction could arise from them feeling that their partner works longer hours, so they feel it is fair to do more housework. Therefore, what is considered fair in a relationship is attributable to what partners think about their relationship. Stafford and Canary (2006) supported this theory in their investigation of 200 married couples who were asked to complete measures related to satisfaction and equity. This study found that satisfaction was highest in couples who perceived their relationship to be equitable and suggests that inequitable relationships could be more at risk of dissolution.
Cultural factors in why relationships change or end
Research into cultural aspects of relationships has been extensive over the last few decades. The aim has been to determine which factors are similar across different cultural groups and which differ. With regard to relationship change and breakdown, earlier research by Betzig (1989) on 186 different societies across the world showed that infidelity was the most common reason for relationship breakdown. In contrast, reasons for breakdown such as bad omens and disputes over dowries were more culturally specific. Betzig speculates that infidelity is a common factor cross-culturally in threatening a marriage because there is so much at risk in the partnership in terms of resources. Therefore, this finding highlights the value placed on marriage resources (reproductive, social, economic) across different cultures.
The cultural background of romantic partners can also play a role in relationship change and breakdown. In today’s globalised world, marriages and partnerships between couples with different cultural heritages are becoming increasingly more common. Consequently, some researchers have sought to determine how far intercultural factors may be involved in relationship dissolution. One such study was conducted in Finland by Lainiala and Säävälä (2013), the details of which are examined in more depth below:
Focus on Research
Lainiala and Säävälä’s (2013) study focused on how far men and women in Finland in intercultural marriages had considered divorce in comparison to men and women in monocultural marriages. The study took place in 2012 and the intercultural sample were drawn randomly from the Population Register of Finland. The sample size was 6000 participants and comprised native Finnish, Swedish or Sami (a Scandinavian indigenous language) speaking males and females married to a spouse who spoke a foreign language. In addition, the sample contained foreign language speaking males and females married to Finnish, Swedish or Sami speakers. During the sampling, measures were put in place to ensure accuracy of origin by assessing registered native language as specified in the Population Register of Finland. The data of a group of participants in monocultural marriages from an earlier study in 2008 was used as a comparison group. Miettinena and Rotkirch carried out the monocultural study on a sample of 3058 married participants aged 25-44 years.
Lainiala and Säävälä used a postal survey to gather data from the participants in intercultural marriages. An internet option for responding was also given. Participants were questioned on various issues, including sources of conflict such as money, friends, religion, and value orientation. This latter variable relates to how far a couple agree on certain values when thinking about bringing up children. Some examples from the study include good manners, tolerance and respect, and obedience. Participants were also asked to rate whether they had considered divorcing their partner last year.
Analysis of the results revealed that females (Finnish and born in a foreign country) in both intercultural and monocultural marriages were similar in their level of consideration of divorce in the previous 12 months. However, there were differences between males in intercultural and monocultural marriages in that males in intercultural marriages were more likely to have considered a divorce. The authors speculated that this may be attributable to their observation that conflicts about different values were more likely to occur in marriages between a Finnish male and a foreign born wife. However, the authors acknowledge that data about values was not available from the study on monocultural couples, and thus a comparison in this respect could not be made. However, Lainiala and Säävälä speculate tentatively that value conflicts may be a factor in divorce consideration by Finnish men who are married to women with a different country of origin. Therefore, this suggests that cultural factors could contribute to marital breakdown in this group.
1.4 Assessment Advice
The options will be assessed in Paper 2. SL students choose one essay, while HL students choose two essays, one from each of the options they have studied.
The essay titles for Paper 2 will only use command terms that correspond to assessment objective 3. These are:
Each option is divided into three topics. There will be three essay titles to choose from for each option, one for each topic in the option.
Source: IB Psychology Guide
2. Group Dynamics
2.1 Cooperation and competition
Biological factors in cooperation and competition
In Chapter 4 of the Pamoja Student Guide to IB Psychology, you studied the endocrine system and focused on testosterone's role on human behaviour. In the context of this section, we are again going to discuss the role of testosterone, focusing on how far it is involved in behaviour related to cooperation and competition.
As you learned in Chapter 4, several research studies had implicated higher testosterone levels with aggression in males and females. However, Archer (1994) reviewed the research and pointed out that this was a simplistic view. In fact, Archer concluded that with regard to males, there was a low positive correlation between testosterone levels and aggression but a much higher positive correlation between testosterone levels and measures of dominance. Carré et al.’s (2016) research measured male participants for dominance and impulsivity personality traits before giving them an injection of testosterone to increase their testosterone levels. After the injection, the participants took part in a computer game where they were led to believe they competed with another player (but it was actually the computer). It was found that the higher testosterone level alone was not enough to increase aggression. Instead, aggression was increased in those men who also had been injected with the testosterone and had high levels of dominance and impulsivity in their personality profile. Therefore, the study demonstrates that in competitive situations, aggression can ensue in the presence of higher testosterone levels and particular personality characteristics related to dominant and impulsive behaviour.
The research by Carré et al. (2016) demonstrates the variables that interact with high testosterone levels to cause antisocial behaviour in competitive situations. However, other research has demonstrated that testosterone is not always associated with antisocial behaviour, it can also be associated with prosocial behaviour. Boksem et al. (2013), for example, demonstrated that prosocial behaviour in the form of reciprocity, a form of cooperative behaviour, can occur in certain situations even if testosterone levels are raised. The study is summarised below.
Focus on Research
Boksem et al.’s (2013) study used 54 female participants in a double-blind procedure. Half the participants were given a placebo solution and half given a testosterone solution to drink before undertaking a game based on investment judgements involving money. This was called a ‘trust’ game developed previously by Berg et al. (1995). Each participant played with an anonymous partner. In one condition, the partner was the ‘trustee’. The participant (or ‘investor’) was given $30 and had the opportunity to invest a portion or all the money with the trustee. Whatever the amount that was invested, this was tripled to $90 by the trustee and then the trustee decided how much to give back to the participant. Participants also played the investor's role with the consequence that they could keep the full $90 should they wish to. The results showed that when participants were investors, they were more likely to be antisocial if they were in the testosterone group because they saw the trustee as a threat to their financial resources. However, it was surprising that when participants were trustees, they were more likely to be prosocial if they were in the testosterone group. The researchers suggested that when a person is in a high-status position (trustee), higher testosterone increases cooperation in situations where no threat is perceived, in this case to the trustee’s financial position. Therefore, we can see that higher testosterone levels are not always associated with negative outcomes and can promote cooperative, prosocial behaviour.
Cognitive factors in cooperation and competition
In an early attempt to investigation cognitive factors in cooperation, Pincus and Bixenstine (1979) used the Prisoner’s Dilemma game. This game is designed to test the dimensions of cooperation in the face of a dilemma about a prison sentence. The game scenario involves two suspects from a gang (fictional) being given ultimatums: if the two suspects betray each other, they get a two-year sentence (the cooperation condition). However, if one remains silent but is betrayed by the other suspect, they will get a three-year sentence while the betrayer goes free. Finally, if both are silent, they will both get a one-year sentence. Using 48 pairs of university students, Pincus and Bixenstine found that cognitive abilities were linked to cooperative behaviour in the game. For example, students with higher verbal and abstract information-processing ability were much more likely to be cooperative. Therefore, the study suggests that individuals with more advanced skills in certain cognitive domains can negotiate more positive interpersonal outcomes in social situations.
Social factors in cooperation and competition
Realistic conflict theory (RCT), initially proposed by the social scientist Donald Campbell in the early 20th century, is one theory in social psychology that has been proposed to explain why groups either decide to compete or whether they decide to cooperate. RCT predicts that competition is more likely to ensue between groups if resources such as social status, food, or money are scarce. This scarcity can be real or perceived. According to Sherif (1966), the result of such a situation will be the development of discriminatory behaviour towards the other group in the form of negative stereotypes. In addition, cooperation within each group will increase to enhance the likelihood that the desired resources will be obtained. In Chapter 6 (Sociocultural Approach) of the Pamoja Student Guide to IB Psychology, you were introduced to the ingroup/outgroup concept. This concept is also relevant here because the greater the competition for resources, the more likely it is that ingroups and outgroups will form, and discriminatory intergroup behaviour will occur. However, RCT also states that if groups have no choice but to work together to achieve an outcome, competition can be reduced, and cooperation enhanced. The principles of RCT can be seen in the 1961 study by Sherif et al. in which groups of young boys were manipulated to encourage intergroup cooperation or competition.
Focus on Research
Sherif et al.’s (1961) study was set in an American summer camp over three weeks in a park in Oklahoma called the Robber’s Cave State Park. Twenty 12-year-old boys took part in the study, which was a field experiment. Before the study, they were randomly assigned to one of two groups (the Rattlers and the Eagles), but at this stage they were taken to the camp with their assigned group members and were not aware that there was another group until a week later. When they were finally introduced to the other group, hostility arose as each felt the other was invading their territory.
Over the next 4-6 days, competition between the groups was encouraged through various competitive activities and situations. For example, Sherif et al. arranged team games such as baseball and tug-of-war with prizes for the winners but none for the losers. Social situations were also manipulated, such as arranging a meal where the groups were left alone. Eventually conflict arose between the groups and food was thrown around the mess hall. Ultimately, as the end of the six days approached, the situation escalated with acts becoming increasingly more aggressive. At one stage the boys even had to be physically separated.
The researchers then manipulated the social situation once more to investigate whether cooperation between the groups could be instigated at this stage. To do this, Sherif et al. introduced tasks in which the groups had to work together to achieve a common goal (a superordinate goal in Sherif et al.’s terminology). One of these tasks was to fix a broken water supply system. Although the researchers set this up to appear faulty, the boys did not know this and therefore they became concerned that they would have to go without water, which would be detrimental to both groups. Consequently, the friction between the groups reduced as they worked to repair the water supply.
The elements of RCT with regard to competition and cooperation were therefore demonstrated in Sherif et al.’s study: firstly, through the initial conflict stages where competition for social status was sought by the two groups and secondly, in the later part of the study where cooperation was needed to achieve a mutually beneficial goal.
Cultural factors in cooperation and competition
In Chapter 6 of the Pamoja Student Guide to IB Psychology, you studied the sociocultural approach in psychology, and you became acquainted with the concept of acculturation. To recap, this term relates to the process of socialisation and psychological adjustment that takes place when two cultures come into contact. Early research by Miller (1973) showed that cooperative behaviour was more likely to occur than competitive behaviour in acculturated school systems. This study was conducted in Canada and involved testing groups of Blackfoot Indian and non-Indian Canadian children who attended an integrated school. The children played a game known as The Madsen Cooperation Board. They were divided into a team of Blackfoot students, a team of non-Indian Canadian students and an integrated team with students from both backgrounds. The game encouraged both competitive and cooperative behaviour, but only cooperative behaviour received any rewards. It was found that the teams from this school showed more cooperative behaviour. This contrasted with earlier research on Blackfoot children and non-Indian Canadian children attending non-integrated schools. In other words, despite rewards being given for cooperative behaviour in the game, this did not encourage cooperative behaviour in these students. Miller speculated that acculturation at the integrated school had enhanced the students’ socialisation skills hence they were more likely to be cooperative with each other.
More recent research into cooperative/competitive behaviour between individuals has demonstrated that economic factors can be important. For example, Shin and Dovidio (2016) investigated how far economic competitiveness was instrumental in prejudicial attitudes to foreign workers and immigrants. These researchers studied prejudice towards these groups in North European-heritage locations (Norway and USA) and in East Asian locations (South Korea and China). The results indicated that economic competitiveness within North European-heritage cultures was a correlational factor in prejudice towards foreign workers and immigrants. As a result, this study demonstrates that competition for economic resources can encourage prejudicial attitudes and behaviours in interpersonal work relationships.
2.2 Prejudice and Discrimination
The term ‘prejudice’ literally means ‘prejudgment’ and can be defined as an attitude typically associated with negative affect. Psychologists accept that attitudes are comprised of a cognitive component. In the case of prejudice, the cognitive component is a stereotype which was discussed in the Sociocultural Approach. Like other attitudes, prejudice may be expressed as a behaviour, in psychology we refer to the behaviour as discrimination.
The irony here is that prejudice does not discriminate! Throughout history, and continuing today, countless social groups have demonstrated prejudice towards outgroups. Certain groups are more likely to be enduring victims of prejudice and discrimination, with the defining features of these groups being based on social categories that are vivid, omnipresent and have a social purpose. They often include people who occupy low power positions in society, such as ethnic minorities and women. The pervasive nature of prejudice is often referred to as the ‘generality of prejudice’. Below we will explore biological, cognitive, and sociocultural factors contributing to prejudice and discrimination.
Biological-based factors in prejudice and discrimination: the amygdala and threat
As we will see in the sections below, for many years, researchers have tried to understand prejudice and discrimination from cognitive and socio-cultural viewpoints, however, more recent research spurred on by the development of non-invasive brain scanning techniques has investigated the role of brain structures involved in prejudice and discrimination. The first study providing a link between the amygdala and different ingroups and outgroups was conducted in 2000 by Hart, Whalen, Shin, McInerney, Fischer and Rauch. They presented unknown black and white faces to participants in an fMRI scanner. At first, there was no difference in neural activity but after a few minutes break and a second presentation of the faces there was an increase in amygdala activity for outgroup faces. This suggests that there is a neurological basis for ingroup and outgroup categorisation. Phelps et al. (2000) presented research that indicated the amygdala could be linked to racial bias against outgroup members. Chekroud, Everett, Bridge and Hewstone (2014) provide an excellent review of the research into biological explanations for prejudice and discrimination. You can read it here and a summary is also presented in the next focus on research section.
Focus on Research
Chekroud, Everett, Bridge, and Hewstone (2014) provide a narrative review of the literature investigating the link between the amygdala and prejudice and discrimination (a narrative review summarises key findings and conclusions from a selection of topic-relevant papers. However, it can be biased in the selected papers). Since 2000 researchers have consistently found greater activity in the amygdala, which is a neurological structure involved in emotional responses, when presented with outgroup faces compared to ingroup faces. Typically, this has been used as evidence of a biological basis for categorisation. However, Chekroud et al. extend this understanding and argue that the amygdala provides a threat response to culturally learned associations. In other words, the amygdala becomes activated to protect the individual from threat-based responses. They argue that culturally based stereotypes linking black males with more negative behaviours (e.g., violence and criminality) may also explain the observed pattern of amygdala activity. Thus, our amygdala (which is involved in the flight or fight response), may become activated when presented with outgroup members because of fear or threat to the individual.
Cognitive based factors in prejudice and discrimination: schema theory
As prejudice is an attitude, it is worthwhile to note that cognitive elements comprise attitudes. The cognitive component of prejudiced attitudes can be defined as stereotypes (see McIntyre, Paolini & Hewstone, 2016). Stereotypes are widely held generalisations about groups, although these are typically negative, they can also be positive. According to Augostinos et al. (2006), a stereotype is the same thing as a schema with all the same properties of schemas. So, the cognitive approach suggests that the process of categorization and schema development is a contributing factor to prejudice. However, it is important to note that the explanation of prejudice and discrimination through the existence of schemas is overly simplistic. Many times, people may hold a negative stereotype about an outgroup and never display a prejudiced attitude and do not perform discriminatory behaviours. Therefore, it is important to look at other factors that lead to prejudice and discrimination.
As you might remember from your learning in the Cognitive Approach to Understanding Behaviour humans develop biases in thinking (if this is unfamiliar, go ahead and review the chapter on the cognitive approach). One of the biases that you covered was the Illusory Correlation which is a belief that two things are associated when there is, at best, only a minor association. For example, we may believe that after seeing an older person fail to stop their car at a crossing, we conclude that all elderly are bad drivers. You will remember that Risen et al. (2007) found that members of minority (rare) groups are more likely to have an illusory correlation when the behaviour is unusual. These authors suggested that members of minority groups are more likely to be associated with unusual or ‘weird’ behaviours. Cognitive psychologists then believe that our cognitions impact our feelings and behaviours (e.g., Beck, 1975; 1999). Thus, establishing a negative illusory correlation can result in prejudiced attitudes and discriminatory behaviour.
Sociocultural based factors in prejudice and discrimination: social categorisation
Since prejudice finds its targets in outgroups, its origins need to lie, at least to some extent, in ingroups. In this sense, discrimination is a form of intergroup behaviour. The mere provision of people into groups is sufficient to generate ingroup favouritism. You will remember learning about Tajfel et al.’s (1971) famous Klee vs. Kandinsky experiment that formed part of their development of the social identity theory in the sociocultural approach. Recall that groups of British male students were placed into arbitrary groups ostensibly based on their painting preferences and then asked to allocate money to different members of their ingroup and outgroup using pre-established decision matrices. You might want to take a moment and revise this section. The results revealed a significant tendency for participants to give more money to ingroup members than to outgroup members (i.e., ingroup favouritism). Ingroup favouritism occurred even when it meant giving ingroup members less than the maximum amount of money available in each matrix (i.e., ingroup bias).
Tajfel et al. (1971) controlled for many competing explanations of ingroup favoritism. As there was no contact between the groups, we cannot say that discrimination occurs only because of a history of violence, there were no pre-established schemas of the group, instead it seems that the mere establishment of groups is sufficient to promote ingroup favoritism and outgroup derogation. Of course, Tajfel et al.’s minimal group paradigm was a highly artificial situation, with no face-to-face interaction between participants. Which does question the validity of this as a single explanation for intergroup behaviours.
Another social-cognitive approach to understanding and improving negative outgroup attitudes is the process of member-to-group generalisation. McIntyre, Paolini, and Hewstone (2016) provide a meta-analytic review of the research that investigates the role of member-to-group generalisation. Member-to-group generalisation occurs when individuals change their outgroup attitudes following exposure to a disconfirming group member. For example, imagine that you were to meet an older person who was engaged and positive. This may change your prejudiced view of the elderly to being less ‘negative and grumpy’. The review provided evidence that prejudicial attitudes are best reduced following exposure to several disconfirming exemplars. The review also concluded that outgroup members need to be perceived as ‘typical’ members that disconfirm the stereotype only slightly, otherwise the outgroup member might be considered extreme and excluded from any reduction in prejudiced attitudes.
2.3 Origins of Conflict and Conflict Resolution
We only need to turn on the news to see that conflict between groups is real and occurs daily. Psychologists are heavily involved in understanding intergroup conflict and proposing solutions for conflict resolution. We will look at two explanations of intergroup conflict: (1) conflict over resources as explained by Sherif et al.’s (1961) realistic conflict theory, and (2) conflict over status as explained by Tajfel and Turner’s social identity theory.
Conflict over resources: realistic conflict theory (RCT)
When groups are forced to compete over scarce resources, intergroup relations can become marked by conflict. In section 2.1 of this chapter, you were introduced to the work of Sherif et al. (1961). According to Sherif, conflict between groups occurs when groups compete to obtain a mutually exclusive goal (i.e., a goal that sees one group required to ‘beat’ the other group to ‘win’). He argued that introducing a superordinate group goal (i.e., a goal that required cooperation between the groups to be achieved) is one way to reduce conflict. You will remember that Sherif et al. (1961) supported the Realistic Conflict Theory with a series of longitudinal field experiments that each lasted about three weeks using young boys at American summer camps. Sherif concluded that mutually exclusive goals can cause intergroup conflict to develop and superordinate goals are one way to resolve intergroup conflict. Thus, you can use this study to support conflict and conflict resolution.
Certainly, the world has changed a lot since Sherif et al. (1961) conducted their pivotal research into RCT back in 1961. Social psychologists have researched modern applications of the theory using different online activities. One example of modern research investigating RCT is from Adachi, Hodson, Willoughby, and Zanette (2014), who used video games to reduce prejudiced attitudes. Read Focus on Research 8.10 for a more detailed understanding of some of this modern approach to testing and understanding prejudice.
Focus on Research
Adachi et al. (2014) asked Canadian university students to cooperate with a partner playing a violent video game for 12 minutes. The participants were 154 Canadian undergraduate students at Brock University of which 56% were female with a mean age of 18 years and 9 months (16 suspicious participants were excluded, leaving 138). The ‘partner’ was either a member from their ingroup (same Canadian university) or was an outgroup member (from the University of Buffalo in the USA). The game required participants to work together to shoot and kill attacking zombie-like enemies. They found that intergroup cooperation with an American participant reduced prejudice towards students from the University of Buffalo and towards Americans in general (there was no change in attitudes towards ingroup members). Thus, the post-game level of prejudice was significantly reduced compared to the pre-game level after they had worked towards a shared superordinate goal. In addition, Adachi et al. were also able to demonstrate that discrimination was positively affected after playing cooperatively with the outgroup member. Participants would typically decline the opportunity to discriminate against their partner when they were offered the opportunity to administer a negative outcome.
Conflict over status: social identity theory
Tajfel and Turner (1979) accepted Sherif’s realistic conflict theory but noted that groups are often in conflict with no material resources involved. Tajfel and Turner proposed the social identity theory to explain conflict between groups when there is no material resource at stake but instead a conflict that occurs over status. To do this, they proposed the social identity theory. You might want to use this lesson to review your understanding of social identity theory from the sociocultural approach. For this section, you need to focus on the element of the theory that looked at social comparison.
Our social identity is part of our self-concept and is built from our membership with different groups. This is different from our personal identity, which is built from the way we perceive ourselves and our personal relationships with others. Therefore, our social identity is tied to intergroup behaviours while our personal identity is tied to interpersonal behaviours. According to social identity theory (SIT) we strive for a positive self-concept and therefore seek out groups that enhance our self-esteem. To establish a positive social identity, we compare our ingroup with different outgroups – this is known as social comparison. Through social comparison we engage in positive distinctiveness whereby we evaluate our group as more positive than our outgroup. This positive distinctiveness contributes to enhanced self-esteem.
Social identity theory has been used to explain competition between groups that does not involve a conflict for physical/material resources.
Tajfel et al.’s (1971) minimal group paradigm that you learned previously was used as evidence to support SIT. The idea that the boys in the study would award more points to members of their ingroup – even when it meant awarding less points that were available – indicated that there was something about being the group with the higher status. A case whereby we want to enhance our social identity to be ‘better’ than the outgroup.
Ask YourselfAre there other ways to explain the results from Sherif? Do you think that the results may be due to nothing more than the cooperative or competitive nature of the interaction?
Is it possible, that Tajfel et al.’s (1971) results can be used to explain the RCT (i.e., is the mere process of splitting the boys into the two groups that contributed to the conflict and not the nature of the group goals)?
Conflict resolution: intergroup contact
Historically, groups have often (and still are) been separated by educational, occupational, cultural and material differences. By bringing groups together under the right conditions can, however, reduce conflict. That is, intergroup contact can serve to reduce conflict.
Gordon Allport’s (1954) contact hypothesis starts from the assumption that negative attitudes about the outgroup are maintained by a lack of access to disconfirming information. Therefore, promoting contact between members of different groups should disconfirm negative stereotypes and therefore reduce stereotypes, prejudice and intergroup conflict.
Allport (1954) first proposed the contact hypothesis in the same year that the United States Supreme Courts passed the law of racial desegregation in the education system. This meant that black and white children would now go to the same schools, rather than being segregated into different schools as they had been in the past. This provided a real-world test of the contact hypothesis. Interestingly, initially there was an increase in conflict between the students.
Allport defended his theory arguing that you need to have three conditions for successful contact. Following are Allport’s conditions for contact:
1. Contact needs to be prolonged and involve cooperative activity. In other words, the contact experience must be a positive experience that changes your ideas about the outgroup. It was precisely this sort of contact that improved relations in Sherif’s (1961) summer camp studies.
2. Contact should be supported by officials and authorities. While legislation against discrimination will not in itself abolish intergroup conflict, it provides a social climate that is conducive to more tolerant social practices.
3. Contact should occur between people or groups of equal status. Unequal status contact is likely to confirm stereotypes and thus further entrench prejudice and discrimination.
Hundreds of studies have been published supporting the contact hypothesis. Pettigrew and Tropp (2005; 2006) carried out a meta-analysis of over 500 contact studies and provided convincing evidence that contact reduces prejudice and conflict. They sought studies that had exposed individuals to contact with people from different outgroup members. The studies, although predominately from America, were accessed from all over the world and had been conducted over a 60-year period. Within the meta-analysis they found that Allport’s three optimal conditions – prolonged cooperative contact between equal status groups that is supported by officials – enhanced the beneficial effects of contact.
An effect of intergroup contact on bias reduction also has been examined in a non-violent video game. Vang and Fox (2014) asked white participants to play a non-violent anagram game (unscrambling a series of letters to create words) in the virtual environment Second Life, either competitively or cooperatively, and with either a white (ingroup) or black (outgroup) avatar. After playing the game, white participants indicated their attitude toward the avatar (either black or white) with whom they played either cooperatively or competitively. The researchers found a strong effect of intergroup contact on bias reduction in the non-violent game, such that evaluations of black avatars in both the intergroup cooperation and competition conditions were more favourable than evaluations of white avatars in the intragroup cooperation and competition conditions. Hence, intergroup cooperation and competition in the non-violent video game led to favourable attitudes toward an outgroup (black) avatar, which were even more positive than attitudes toward an ingroup (white) avatar among participants who engaged in intragroup cooperation and competition. However, the researchers did not assess real-world attitudes toward blacks and whites generally.
2.4 Assessment Advice
You have been introduced to many new terms and concepts in this section. Remember, when you first introduce a key psychological term, you should provide a clear and concise definition. For example, you might want to define an ‘ingroup’ as a group to which an individual belongs and an ‘outgroup’ as a group to which an individual does not belong.
A very common error in both the sociocultural approach and this topic is confusion between Tajfel and Turner’s (1979) social identity theory and Bandura’s (1977) social cognitive theory. These are two completely different theories – for this section you need to be familiar with SIT and not SCT.
The theories and studies that have been included in this section have intentionally been ones that you covered in your sociocultural approach section. You might want to go back and review each in more detail. This will help you with this section and with your revision for Paper 1.
Remember that for Paper 2 you will be asked to answer one extended response question from a selection of three on the psychology of Human Relationships (of course, you will also need to answer an ERQ for Abnormal Psychology too). The command terms that will be used in Paper 2 are: (1) contrast, (2) discuss, (3) evaluate, and (4) to what extent. For example, you may be presented with a question such as: “Evaluate theories or studies that explain prejudice and discrimination”, or “Contrast research or theories that investigate the origins of conflict”.
3. Social Responsibility
3.1 Bystanderism
Kitty Genovese was returning home from her job as manager of a New York city bar in the early morning hours of March 13, 1964. As she crossed the street from her car to her apartment building, a man armed with a knife approached her. Kitty ran away, however, the man chased and caught her. As he stabbed her, she screamed for help and lights went on in many of the apartments overlooking the street as people looked out to see what was going on. The attacker started to leave, but when he saw that no one was coming to help his victim, he returned to kill her. She screamed again, but he stabbed her repeatedly until she was dead. It was later determined that this horrifying forty-five-minute attack was seen and heard by 38 witnesses, but no one took any direct action or bothered to call the police.
This event triggered the research into ‘bystanderism’, which endeavoured to understand what factors might influence people not to help an individual in need. Two of the early researchers in this area were John Darley and Bibb Latané, who were motivated to gain greater understanding and insight into the behaviours of the people who witnessed the murder of Kitty Genovese.
Social psychologists have come up with three key factors that contribute to bystanderism:
1. Diffusion of responsibility
2. Interpretation ambiguity, and
3. Evaluation apprehension
We will look at each of these three factors in turn.
Diffusion of responsibility
In the case of Kitty Genovese, many of the bystanders were aware of the other witnesses as they could see that other people had also turned on their lights. Many assumed that other witnesses had already called the police. Darley and Latané suggested that the presence of many people may have contributed to a lack of helping as the responsibility was diffused across the group.
To test the idea of diffusion of responsibility, Darley and Latané designed a series of experiments. See the focus on research 8.11.
Focus on Research
Darley and Latané (1968) aimed to test the diffusion of responsibility hypothesis by creating an emergency. To do this the participants (first-year university students) were told the cover story that the researchers were interested in finding out about their adjustment to university life. They were asked to discuss their personal experiences and problems in starting university. The participants were also told that they would be asked to talk openly about their experiences in a private booth using a microphone to maintain their privacy. They were told that each person in the discussion group could talk for 2 minutes, and then the next participant would have an opportunity to talk for 2 minutes and so on.
The cover story allowed the researchers to implement their independent variable (number of people believed to be in the discussion). In condition 1, the participants were told that they were in a group with only one other person; those in condition 2 believed there would be two other people in adjoining booths; while those in condition 3 were told that 5 other people were participating in the discussion. In reality, the participant was alone, and all the other voices they heard through the intercom were recorded.
The researchers then decided to stage an epileptic seizure as a ‘real-life emergency’. As the discussion with the participant and other ‘students’ began, they all heard a male student introduce himself and share his difficulties adjusting to university. At the end of his two minutes, he added that he would sometimes suffer severe seizures. Then the conversation switched to the next person in the discussion. In Condition 1, this was the real participant. In the other conditions, it was switched to another recorded ‘student’ with the real participant always going last. After the real participant talked for two minutes, the microphone was returned to the first speaker, who then began to have a seizure. He would ask for help many times. The experiment was stopped after 4 minutes of the seizure beginning. The dependent variables were the number and speed of the participants who left their cubicles to get help. The results revealed that all the participants in Group 1 went for help within four minutes, while only 85% of Group 2 and 60% of Group 3 did so within the four-minute period.
Darley and Latané concluded that they had demonstrated support for their diffusion of responsibility hypothesis: as the number of other ‘bystanders’ increased, the percentage who reported the seizure quickly decreased.
Interpretation ambiguity
A second explanation for the bystander effect concerns ambiguity in the interpretation of the situation. Potential helpers are sometimes uncertain if a situation is actually an emergency. The behaviours of other bystanders can influence how we define a situation and react to it. If others ignore a situation or act as if nothing is happening, we, too, may assume that no emergency exists.
According to the interpretative ambiguity hypothesis, the reasoning in the bystander’s mind should be something like: “If my neighbours do not react, then apparently, they have decided that there is no emergency, and if there is no emergency, then there is no reason for me to react”. The problem, of course, is that the identical reasoning was going on in each of their neighbours’ thoughts. As a result, everybody misinterpreted the others’ inactivity as reflecting informed decision, when in fact, the inactivity derived from the same uncertainty they were experiencing.
Interpretative issues are not limited to the definition of emergency vs. non-emergency. Potential helpers also make inferences about the causes of the person’s needs. Research suggests that the attributions people make about the victim’s responsibility also influence helping behaviour, with evidence showing that we are less motivated to help when we believe that people are personally responsible for their misfortune. Especially if the bystander believes that the misfortune was controllable. For example, data shows that visible cues like alcohol or a dirty outfit are strong deterrents to helping others.
Evaluation apprehension
A third factor in the bystander effect is evaluation apprehension. Darley and Latané (1968) contended that part of the reason we fail to help when others are present is that we are afraid of being embarrassed or ridiculed.
If we know that other people are watching our behaviour, we may get ‘stage fright’. We may worry that we will do something wrong or that others will evaluate our reaction negatively. This means that the bystanders of the Genovese case may have remained inactive partly because they were worried that they would look foolish by showing concern when others were apparently calm.
So, according to this hypothesis, the desire to avoid the cost of social disapproval can inhibit action. Of course, the same worry of disapproval can even trigger helping behaviour, if helping others is seen as the socially desirable thing to do in a specific situation, then we will help. This means that the direction of our behaviour really depends on how we construct a specific situation.
You can read all of Darley and Latané’s (1968) original report here.
Ask YourselfThink of a time when you acted as a bystander. Which of Darley and Latané’s three key factors contributed to your own bystanderism?
Essential Question: Why do people help vs. not help?From their original research, Darley and Latané became the leading researchers in this field, and they developed a five-step model, known as the Model of Helping Behaviour, outlining why people choose to engage in helping others.
The first step is perceiving a need. When a bystander is confronted by an emergency, for prosocial behaviour to occur, the first thing that must happen is that the bystander must notice the emergency. Darley and Batson (1973) conducted research that supports the need to notice the situation. This is reported in Focus on Research 8.12.
The second step of the process then requires the bystander to interpret the situation as an emergency. We know that ‘interpretation ambiguity’ plays a role in this step of the model. Several bystanders in the Kitty Genovese case reported that they thought it was just a lover’s quarrel and failed to interpret the situation as an emergency.
The third step refers to the personal responsibility of the bystander. We have seen that diffusion of responsibility influences this step. If the bystander assumes that it is someone else’s responsibility, they will not engage in prosocial behaviour.
The fourth step requires the bystander to weigh the costs and benefits of providing help. Here we know that evaluation apprehension will affect the decisions at this point. If the fear of being perceived as foolish is greater than the desire to help, then the bystander will not act.
The final step of the model requires the bystander to deliberate on how to provide help. Does the person have the perceived knowledge, skills or training to be able to provide help? If the answer is yes, then help will be provided.
Focus on Research
Darley and Batson (1973) aimed to identify the effects of cognitive busy-ness on helping behaviour. Cognitive busy-ness refers to those situations in which our mind is already occupied with other activities that it is difficult to process any other information. Cognitive busy-ness can arise from being worried or occupied with another task.
The participants in this experiment were asked to present a talk to a group of people in another building. The independent variable was the degree of cognitive busy-ness. This was manipulated by telling one-third of the participants that they had adequate time to reach the other building. Another third were told that they were right on schedule and had just enough time to get to the building. The other third were told that they were late for the speaking engagement.
As they walked to the other building where the participant was supposed to give a talk, a stranger (actually a research assistant) was slumped in a doorway, coughing and groaning. The dependent variable was the number of participants that helped within each group.
The results revealed that the degree of prosocial behaviour decreased with increased cognitive busyness (or time pressure), whereby those who thought they were late helped the least.
Darley and Batson concluded that a factor influencing bystander behaviour was when the individual failed to notice an emergency because they were preoccupied with other concerns, they are relatively less likely to attend to events in their surroundings and so are less likely to help a person in need.
An interesting twist on the research was that half of the participants were asked to talk about a topic related to helpfulness (comment on the parable of the Good Samaritan), and the other half were asked to talk about how to find a job (clearly not related to helpfulness). However, there was no effect of this variable. So, even when the issue of helpfulness was made mentally available, the participants failed to attend to the needy person if they were running late.
Many of you will be familiar with the term ‘bystander’ and understand this term in relation to school-based bullying. This term is also applied to cyberbullying, and recent research has been involved in understanding what makes people remain a bystander when witnessing online bullying. Schacter, Greenberg and Juvonen (2016) aimed to understand what factors influenced if bystanders would intervene in an online context. The 118 participants were provided with a Facebook profile and asked to read the profile and indicate their level of empathy and blame towards the person’s profile. Participants were randomly allocated to one of four conditions: participants either received a high or low profile in personal disclosure and were presented either positively or negatively. The results indicated that the high personal disclosure profile (i.e., the one with more personal information from the victim) caused the participants to blame the victim more and less empathy for the victim regardless of whether the post was positive or negative worded. These effects then predicted the lower likelihood of bystander intervention with the bullying incident.
In summary, many factors contribute to being a bystander. Some research suggests that these factors may vary according to context, such as an online environment being somewhat different from a face-to-face environment.
3.2 Prosocial Behaviour
Prosocial behaviour is behaviour that benefits another person (or persons). Wispe (1972) defined prosocial behaviour as a behaviour that has positive social consequences and contributes to the well-being of another person. It includes helping behaviours (i.e., acts that intentionally benefit someone else) and altruistic behaviours (i.e., a helping behaviour performed without expectation of personal gain and may be costly to the individual performing the act).
We will look at different factors that influence prosocial behaviour through the lens of each of the approaches to understanding behaviour. We will focus on the kin selection theory from the biological approach, the empathy-altruism theory from the social-cognitive approach, and we will re-visit Bandura’s social cognitive theory from the sociocultural approach and finish by looking at cross-cultural research on altruism.
Biological factors: Kin selection theory
Evolutionary psychologists argue that there is a survival advantage in displaying selfless helping behaviour. However, how would helping a stranger benefit your evolutionary success when it may put your own life at risk? Kin selection offers a simple explanation suggesting that helping others in your family group, particularly direct descendants, will increase the chances of the genes that caused the helping behaviour being passed on. While your helping may directly reduce your chance of survival, it may enhance the direct descendents and therefore increase the chances of your shared genes being passed on. Thus, according to kin selection theory one of the factors that influences prosocial behaviour is the presence of shared genes. Research that supports this theory comes from a study conducted by Sime (1983) who analysed accounts of how people fled from a burning holiday complex and found that when individuals were at the complex with non-biological relatives, they were more likely to have become separated and left the building on their own. In contrast, those that were at the complex with their family members were more likely to stay together and more likely to re-enter the building and this could favour group survival. Thus, according to an evolutionary perspective, factors that increase the likelihood of prosocial behaviour are shared genetics.
While biological factors such as kin are a fascinating notion to explaining prosocial behaviour, the explanation on its own is quite limited. These theories often fail to consider other elements of human capacity such as the ability to communicate (Buck and Ginsburg, 1991) and the impact of social learning.
Socio-cognitive factors: Empathy-altruism hypothesis
Empathy is an emotional response to someone else’s distress, a reaction to witnessing a disturbing event. Daniel Batson (1991) put forward the empathy-altruism hypothesis that suggests when an observer notices another individual is experiencing a mismatch between their current situation and their ideal/potential state this mismatch generates a feeling of empathy. For example, when we see someone injured, we notice their current situation (being injured) is mismatched from their ideal situation (being healthy). Many factors influence the strength of the observer’s empathic response, for instance if the injured person is a family member or a friend, then the response will be higher than if it is a stranger. Also, empathy can be influenced by how much we consider the person in need. For example, if the injured person is a small child, we might perceive a greater need than if they were a young adult and consequently have a higher empathic response. Batson has conducted numerous studies to support the empathy-altruism hypothesis. One is reviewed in Focus on research 8.13.
Focus on Research
Toi and Batson (1982) conducted an experiment that aimed to understand how empathy and ease of escape might influence prosocial behaviour. Female psychology students were asked to listen to an interview of a fellow student (Carol) who had recently broken both her legs in a motor vehicle accident. In the experiment, they manipulated two independent variables. Firstly, empathy was manipulated by asking participants to focus either on the information that was presented (low empathy condition) or on Carol’s feelings about what had happened (high empathy condition). Secondly, ease of escape was manipulated by telling some participants that Carol was stuck at home (high escape condition) or that she would be returning to university next week and would be in the same tutorial group as the participant (low escape condition). The dependent variable was measured by asking participants if they would help Carol by going through class notes with her. The results indicated that participants were more likely to help if they had been listening with a focus on how Carol felt. There was a weaker effect of escape, with participants expecting to meet Carol next week increasing the likelihood that they would help.
Social factors: Social cognitive theory
You may recall from the sociocultural approach that Bandura presented the social cognitive theory. Bandura’s famous bobo doll study revealed that children learn to be aggressive and model adults who act out violent sequences. You might want to take a minute now and revise that section of the course. Principles derived from social cognitive theory have been extended to explain prosocial behaviour. Children exposed to adults modelling prosocial behaviour and experiencing positive reinforcement from others following prosocial behaviour will increase positive behaviours. Rushton and Teachman (1978) used young boys (8-11 years) as participants and had them watch an adult play a game using tokens. The boys watched the adult generously donate some tokens to “poor little Bobby, who had no Mommy or Daddy to look after him”. The boys then played the game. In the experimental conditions, an adult would either positively or negatively reinforce for behaving generously (e.g., “good for you” or “that’s silly now you have less tokens”). The boys in the positive reinforcement condition donated significantly more tokens than the boys in the negative reinforcement condition. This effect remained even when the boys were re-tested two weeks later. Thus, exposure to models acting positively can have an increased impact on prosocial behaviour, much the same as exposure to models acting negatively can impact aggressive behaviours. The effect of positive modelling is significantly enhanced when an individual is positively reinforced for engaging in prosocial behaviour.
Cultural factors: Levine et al.’s (2001) cross-cultural research
Considering the strong argument behind genetic influences in prosocial behaviour, it might make sense that altruistic behaviour occurs universally. However, given the many social differences found around the world, it is also possible that some cultures are more likely to engage in helping behaviours than others. Robert Levine and colleagues (2001) explored cross-cultural differences and similarities in 23 countries. The details of this research are reported below.
Focus on Research
Levine, Norenzayan, and Philnrick (2001) aimed to understand differences in altruism in different cities worldwide. The researchers measured many variables (such as population in the cities, religious influence, the degree of individualism and collectivism) to assess different cultural influences affect prosocial behaviour. This field research used three different situations to measure the spontaneous assistance offered by strangers. The three situations were:
1. A pedestrian drops a pen on the street without noticing
2. A pedestrian wearing a leg brace drops some magazines
3. A blind pedestrian with a cane waits at traffic lights for assistance to cross the street.
An overall ‘helping’ index was created, and the results revealed that the top three cities for prosocial behaviours were Rio de Janeiro (Brazil), San Jose (Costa Rica) and Lilongwe (Mali). The bottom three cities were Singapore (Singapore), New York (USA) and Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia). While there were differences in the helping scales across the cities, collectivism and individualism did not have any relationship to prosocial behaviour. Interestingly, there was a relationship between purchasing power and helping behaviour. As the purchasing power increased the helping behaviour reduced. Levine et al. suggested this may be because there are more established traditional value systems in less developed countries.
Levine et al.’s research indicates that the cultural dimensions of collectivism and individualism may not easily explain differences in helping behaviours. However, it is important to consider other factors at play. For example, we are more likely to help members of ingroups than outgroups and it may be that collectivist cultures have more clearly defined group borders than individualist cultures.
In closing, helping behaviour can be influenced by our genetics (kin selection theory), emotions (empathy altruism theory) and our social environment (social cognitive theory and cross-cultural differences).
3.3 Promoting Prosocial Behaviour
By now, you are aware of many theories and relevant research into the nature and origins of prosocial behaviour. We will now explore how we might promote the tendency of people to help.
Some of the research you can use to understand why people help can be used to suggest ways that we can promote helping behaviour. We will start out by looking at the idea of gratitude and how an expression of gratitude can promote prosocial behaviour. We will then revisit our old friend, the ‘social cognitive theory’ and finish off by looking at the role of skill development and education as different ways to promote prosocial behaviour.
When we are thanked for helping others, even just incidentally perhaps for picking up something they dropped, we are more likely to help in the future (for a review, see McCullough, Kilpatrick, Emmons, & Larson, 2001). Grant and Gino (2010) sought to understand further if gratitude expressions motivate prosocial behaviour and started to explore reasons for this effect. So, you can use this research to support ‘why’ people help and as a way to promote prosocial behaviour. You can read about Grant and Gino’s research below.
Focus on Research
Grant and Gino aimed to understand the role of gratitude as a motivator in prosocial behaviour. As part of the method, they asked sixty-nine university students to edit a student’s cover letter for a job application. Participants in the neutral condition then received email feedback (allegedly) from the student after this task that stated: “Dear [name], I just wanted to let you know that I received your feedback on my cover letter. I was wondering if you could help with a second cover letter I prepared and give me feedback on it. The cover letter is attached. Can you send me some comments in the next 3 days? (p. 948)”. In the gratitude condition, the participants received a very similar letter with the addition of gratitude, this email read: “Dear [name], I just wanted to let you know that I received your feedback on my cover letter. Thank you so much! I am really grateful. I was wondering if you could help with a second cover letter I prepared and give me feedback on it. The cover letter is attached. Can you send me some comments in the next 3 days? (p. 948)”.
After receiving the email, participants were sent a second email from the experimenter asking them to complete a series of measures, including social worth (defined as a sense of being valued by others). The effect of the IV (the neutral or grateful email) was tracked by assessing whether participants engaged in prosocial behaviour by helping the student with the second letter. They found that the percentage of participants helping to edit the second letter was significantly larger in the gratitude condition (23/35, 66%) than in the neutral condition (11/34, 32%). In other words, having received an expression of gratitude is one factor that influences prosocial behaviour. In addition to this, they discovered that the reason ‘why’ people respond positively to expressions of gratitude is because it affects their social worth. The subsequent studies found that people are more likely to help other people beyond the individual who expressed gratitude. So, if we want to promote prosocial behaviour further, an expression of gratitude is one way to do that.
Social cognitive theory
Previously we reviewed Bandura’s social cognitive theory and focused on positive behaviours. Specifically,Rushton and Teachman (1978) found boys were more likely to help one another when exposed to positive reinforcement (verbal praise) and positive role modelling. They argued that we could promote prosocial behaviour through positive reinforcement and positive role modelling. There can be a problem with using reinforcement as a single strategy for promoting prosocial behaviour, as this has been found to reduce long-term helping behaviour. When an individual is rewarded for producing prosocial behaviour, the main reason for the behaviour is that they have accessed a reward. Thus, their motivation is for the behaviour to be reinforced rather than being motivated by the desire to help others. As a result, removing the rewards/reinforcements can cause the helpful behaviour to stop.
While exposure to positive reinforcement and models might be a supporting factor in promoting prosocial behaviour, other factors also need to be considered. If you quickly revisit the helping model that we looked at from Latané and Darley (section 3.1), you will notice many steps along the way that seem to inhibit helping behaviours. The person needs to notice the need for help (step 1), then assess if help is required (step 2) next they must take the responsibility to help (step 3), following that, they need to identify if they have the skills/ability to help (step 4) and finally assess if they should help (step 5).
If we can encourage people to take responsibility (step 3) and ensure they have the necessary skills (step 4), this will promote the likelihood of an individual engaging in prosocial behaviour. We will now look at research that indicates we can promote helping behaviours through increased responsibility and education/skill training.
Taking responsibility
One way we can increase people to engage in helping behaviour at Step 3 (i.e., assess if they are responsible) is through accessing a prior commitment. In a field experiment carried out at a beach in New York, Moriarty (1975) sat next to people who were already seated alone at a beach. Shortly afterwards, he asked the person next to him either for a match (smoking was more common in the 70s!) or to watch his things while he went for a walk. In both conditions, the researcher then went for a walk. While on the walk, a ‘thief’ (confederate) came along, picked up Moriarty’s radio, and walked away. Of those asked for a match, only 20% intervened compared with 95% who were specially asked to be responsible. Most of those even ran after the ‘thief’, some grabbing his arm and demanding an explanation.
In other research on responsibility, Baumester et al. (1988) found that being a leader provides the cues for people to engage in prosocial behaviour more than it does for followers (or non-leaders). Read how they found that just being randomly appointed a leader with no additional skills increased prosocial behaviour in the study below.
Focus on Research
Baumeister, Chesner, Senders and Tice (1988) hypothesised that leaders experience more prosocial behaviours than ordinary group members. They provided male and female participants (N = 32) with the cover story that they were allocated to a four-person group, and one group member was randomly assigned to act as leader. The group's task was to decide which survivors of a nuclear war should be allowed to join the group in its bomb shelter. While the assistants/followers could make recommendations, the leader had to make the final decision.
Participants were tested individually, and the group discussion was simulated over an intercom system. The independent variable was whether the individual participant was told they were a leader or a follower. During the discussion, each participant was exposed to a simulated emergency when the voice of a male group member faltered and said, “somebody come help me, I’m choking!’. He then had a coughing fit and went silent. The dependent variable was the response to the request for help from the male. The results revealed that the designated leaders were much more likely to help. In fact, 80 % of the leaders helped, and only 35 % of the followers did so. Baumeister et al. concluded that acting as a leader can bring a generalised responsibility beyond the immediate requirements of the task and can increase the likelihood of engaging in prosocial behaviour.
Skill development and education
Another way to promote prosocial behaviour is through skill development. It has been found that people with first-aid training are more likely to intervene in helping someone who is injured than those without first-aid training. This would fit with Step 4 of Latané and Darley’s helping model. Supporting evidence for this comes from Pantin and Carver (1982) who showed students a series of films on first-aid and emergencies. Three weeks later they had the chance to help a confederate who was (apparently) choking. The bystander effect was reduced amongst the students who had seen the film. This area of skill development is part of the purpose behind various first-aid courses that are carried out in many countries.
There is evidence to demonstrate that prosocial behaviours can be promoted through education. Beaman, Barnes, Klentz and McQuirk, (1978) presented a film reviewing the research literature on bystander intervention effects to one psychology class (experimental condition) but did not present this literature to a very similar psychology class (control condition). Two weeks later, the students encountered a person in need of help. This student was a confederate in the experiment and was slumped over a park bench. The students witnessed this confederate either alone or with another person (who was also a confederate) who ignored the person in need of help. Of the students who had received the information on bystander intervention 43% offered help, compared to 25% of students who had not received the information on bystander intervention. This study worked because it imparted new knowledge about bystander intervention and perhaps also because it makes people more aware of the importance of helping.
Ask Yourself
What effect has learning about prosocial behaviour had on you? Will knowledge increase your willingness to help people in distress?
In summary, it seems that we can increase prosocial behaviour through reinforcement, skill development, commitment and education.
3.4 Assessment Advice
Some possible ERQ questions you might see for this section could include:
Discuss theories or studies on bystanderism?
To what extent can prosocial behaviour be promoted?
As you know, you will be assessed in Paper 2 through two essay questions. The essays are marked out of 22 using the A-E Criterion. Most students recognize that they need to provide empirical (both experimental and theoretical) evidence to support their grades for Criterion B and C. As an IB examiner, I often see students struggle to demonstrate critical thinking (Criterion D).
Critical thinking is not about criticizing someone else’s point of view or taking a negative approach. It involves making a logical and rational evaluation of research evidence and assessing its strengths and weaknesses.
Critical thinking is not ‘magic’ – it is a skill anyone can learn and apply. The IB Psychology guide outlines five areas of critical thinking that can be demonstrated in your responses as:
1. Research design and methodologies
2. Triangulation
3. Assumptions and biases
4. Contradictory evidence or alternative theories or explanations
5. Areas of uncertainty.
I would encourage you to use these terms to highlight to the marker you are ‘doing’ critical thinking. For example, you may want to start a sentence with “An area of uncertainty is …”.
Throughout this section on Social Responsibility, you can see that there is no one answer for any behaviour. You should be able to flag contradictory evidence or alternative theories with some level of sophistication. In addition, there are many areas of uncertainty. For example, what role does the cultural dimension of collectivism and individualism play in prosocial behaviour?
Criterion E is on clarity and organization and is marked out of 2. Many students seem to
think this is an ‘easy’ mark area. However, it is critical to plan your response and ensure that your work is controlled and logical so that the reader can easily follow your reasoning. The easiest way to achieve this is by using a structure that takes the reader down a clear and logical path. Do not try to cram too many ideas into each paragraph or jump from one part of your argument to another. Build your argument step by step. Each point you make should build on the previous point and flow logically from it.
References
Adachi, P. J. C., Hodson, G., Willoughby, T., & Zanette, S. (2014). Brothers and sisters in arms: Intergroup cooperation in a violent shooter game can reduce intergroup bias. Psychology of Violence, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0037407.
Adeagbo, O. (2015). Love beyond colour: the formation of interracial gay men’s intimate relationships in post-apartheid South Africa. National Identities, 18(3), 241-264.
Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. (1950). The authoritarian personality. New York, NY: Harper and Row.
Allport, G. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Archer, J. (1994). Testosterone and Aggression. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 21, 3-4.
Augoustinos, M., Walker, I., & Danaghue, N. (2006). Social Cognition. An Integrated Introduction (2nd ed.), London and Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bandura, A. (1965). Influences of model’s reinforcement contingencies on the acquisition of imitative response. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1, 589-93.
Batson C. D. (1991). The altruism question: Toward a social psychological answer. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Baumeister, R. F., Chesner, S. P., Senders P. S., & Tice D. M. (1988). Who’s in charge here? Group leaders do lend help in emergencies. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14, 17-22.
Beaman, A. Barnes, P., Klentz, B., & McQuirk, B. (1978). Increasing helping rates through information dissemination: teaching pays. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4, 406-411.
Beck, A.T. (1975). Cognitive therapy and the emotional disorders. Madison, CT: International Universities Press, Inc.
Beck, A.T. (1999). Prisoners of hate: The cognitive basis of anger, hostility, and violence. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers.
Berg, J., Dickhaut, J., & McCabe, K. (1995). Trust, reciprocity, and social history. Games and Economic Behavior, 10, 122-142.
Betzig, L. (1989). Causes of conjugal dissolution: A cross-cultural study. Current Anthropology, 30, 654–676.
Boksem, M.A., Mehta, P.H., Van den Bergh, B., van Son, V., Trautmann, S.T., Roelofs, K., Smidts, A., & Sanfey, A.G. (2013). Testosterone inhibits trust but promotes reciprocity. Psychological Science, 24(11), 2306-2314.
Buck, R. & Ginsburg, B. (1991). Spontaneous communication and altruism: The communicative gene hypothesis. In M. S. Clark (ed), Prosocial behaviour (pp. 149-175). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Buss, D.M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 12, 1-49.
Buss, D.M., Larsen, R.J., Westen, D., & Semmelroth, J. (1992). Sex differences in jealousy: Evolution, physiology and psychology. Psychological Science, 3(4), 251-255.
Canary, D. J., & Stafford, L. (1994). Communication and Relationship Maintenance. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Carré, J.M., Geniole, S.N., Ortiz, T.L., Bird, B.M., Videto, A., & Bonin, P.L. (2017). Exogenous testosterone rapidly increases aggressive behaviour in dominant and impulsive men. Biological Psychiatry, 82(4), 1-8.
Chekroud, A.M., Everett, J.A.C, Bridge, H., & Hewstone, M. (2014). A review of neuroimaging studies of race-related prejudice: does amygdala response reflect threat? Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8:179. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2014.00179
Darley, J. M., & Batson, C.D. (1973). "From Jerusalem to Jericho": A study of Situational and Dispositional Variables in Helping Behavior". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 27, 100-108.
Darley, J. M., & Latané, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of Responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 377-383.
DeYoung, C. G., Hirsh, J. B., Shane, M. S., Papademetris, X., Rajeevan, N., & Gray, J. R. (2010). Testing predictions from personality neuroscience brain structure and the big five. Psychological Science, 21(6), 820-828.
Dina, C., Nemonov, L., Gritsenko, I., Rosolio, N., Osher, Y., Heresco-Levy, U., Sariashvilli, E., Bachner-Melman, R., Zohar, A.H., Benjamin, J., Belmaker, R.H., & Ebstein, R.P. (2004). Fine mapping of a region on chromosome 8p gives evidence for a QTL contributing to individual differences in an anxiety-related personality trait: TPQ harm avoidance. American Journal of Medical Genetics, 132B(1), 104-108.
Duck, S. (1985). Social and personal relationships. In M. L. Knapp and G. R. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of Interpersonal Communication (pp. 665–686). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Fraley, R. C., & Shaver, P. R. (2000). Adult romantic attachment: Theoretical developments emerging controversies and unanswered questions. Review of General Psychology, 4, 132–154.
Gottman, J. M., Murray, J. D., Swanson, C.C., Tyson, R., & Swanson, K.R. (2003). The mathematics of marriage: Dynamic nonlinear models. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Grant, A. M., & Gino, F. (2010). A little thanks goes a long way: Explaining why gratitude expressions motivate prosocial behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 946 –955.
Hart, A. J., Whalen, P. J., Shin, L. M., McInerney, S. C., Fischer, H., and Rauch, S. L. (2000). Differential response in the human amygdala to racial outgroup vs ingroup face stimuli. Neuroreport, 11, 2351–2355.
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511–524.
Heider, F. (1958). The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. New York, NY: Wiley.
Koerner, A.F., & Floyd, K. (2010). Evolutionary perspectives on interpersonal relationships. In S. W. Smith & S. R. Wilson (Eds.), New directions in interpersonal communication research (pp. 27–47). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Kurdek, L. A. (1991). The dissolution of gay and lesbian couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 8(2), 265-278.
Lainiala, L., & Säävälä, M. (2013). Intercultural marriages and consideration of divorce in Finland: Do value differences matter? Väestöliiton Väestöntutkimuslaitoksen työpaperi, 4, 1-16.
Leder, G.C., & Forgasz, H.J. (2004). Australian and international mature students: the daily challenges. Higher Education Research and Development, 23(2), 183-198.
Lehnart, J., & Neyer, F. J. (2006). Should I stay or should I go? Attachment and personality in stable and instable romantic relationships. European Journal of Personality, 20, 475–495.
Levine, R. V., Norenzayan, A., & Philnrick, K. (2001). Cross-cultural differences in helping strangers. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 32, 543-560.
McAuley, E., Duncan, T. E., & Russell, D. W. (1992). Measuring causal attributions: The Revised Causal Dimension Scale (CDSII). Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 566-573.
McCullough, M.E., Kilpatrick, S.D., Emmons, R.A., & Larson, D.B. (2001). Is gratitude a moral affect? Psychological Bulletin, 127(2), 249-266.
McIntyre, K., Paolini, S., & Hewstone, M. (2016). Changing people's views of outgroups through individual-to-group generalisation: Meta-analytic reviews and theoretical considerations. European Review of Social Psychology, 27 (1), 63-115.
McLeod, J.M., & Chaffee, S.R. (1972). The Construction of Social Reality. In J.T. Tedeschi (Ed.), The Social Influence Processes (pp. 50-59). Chicago, Ill: Aldine-Atherton.
Miettinen, A., & Rotkirch, A. (2008). Milloin on lapsen aika. Lastenhankinnan toiveet ja esteet. Helsinki: Väestöliitto ry.
Miller, A.G. (1973). Integration and acculturation of cooperative behaviour among Blackfoot Indian and non-Indian Canadian children. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 4(3), 374-380.
Moriarty, T. (1975). Crime, commitment and the responsive bystander: Two field experiments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31(2), 370-376.
Pantin H. M., & Carver C. S. (1982). Induced competence and the bystander effect. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 12, 100-111.
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L .R. (2005). Relationships between intergroup contact and prejudice among minority and mahority status groups. Psychological Science, 16(12), 951-957.
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L .R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 751-783.
Phelps, E. A., O'Connor, K. J., Cunningham, W. A., Funayama, E. S., Gatenby, J. C., Gore, J. C., et al. (2000). Performance on indirect measures of race evaluation predicts amygdala activation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 12, 729–738.
Pincus, J., & Bixenstine, V.E. (1979). Cognitive factors and cooperation in the Prisoner’s Dilemma Game. The Psychological Record, 29(4), 463-471.
Risen, J.L., Gilovich, T., & Dunning, D. (2007). One-shot illusory correlations and stereotype formation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(11), 1492-1502.
Rueter, M. A., & Koerner, A. F. (2008). The effect of family communication patterns on adopted adolescent adjustment. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70,
715–727.
Rusbult, C. E., & Martz, J. M. (1995). Remaining in an abusive relationship: An investment analysis of non-voluntary dependence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 558-571.
Rushton, J. P., & Teachman, G. (1978). The effects of positive reinforcement, attributions, and punishment on model induced altruism in children. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4, 322-325.
Sanchez-Burks, J., Bartel, C.A., & Blount, S. (2009). Performance in intercultural interactions at work: Cross-cultural differences in response to behavioural mirroring. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 216-223.
Schacter, H. L., Greenberg, S., & Juvonen, J. (2016). Who's to blame?: The effects of victim disclosure on bystander reactions to cyberbullying. Computers in Human Behavior, 57, 115-121.
Sherif, M. (1966). Group conflict and co-operation: Their social psychology. London, England: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Sherif, M., Harvey, O. J., White, B. J., Hood, W. R., & Sherif, C. W. (1961). Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The Robbers Cave experiment (Vol. 10). Norman, OK: University Book Exchange.
Shin, H., & Dovidio, J.F. (2016). Cultural Differences in the Role of Economic Competitiveness in Prejudice toward Immigrants and Foreign Workers. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 17(1), 7-32.
Sime J. D. (1983). Affiliative behaviour during escape to building exits. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3, 21-41.
Simons, L.G., Simons, R.L., Landor, A.M., Bryant, C.M., & Beach, S.R.H. (2014). Factors linking childhood experiences to adult romantic relationships among African Americans. Journal of Family Psychology, 28(3), 368-379.
Stafford, L., & Canary, D.J. (2006). Equity and interdependence as predictors of relational maintenance strategies. Journal of Family Communication, 6, 227-254.
Stephanou, G. (2012). Romantic Relationships in Emerging Adulthood: Perception-Partner Ideal Discrepancies, Attributions, and Expectations. Scientific Research, 3(2), 150-160.
Tajfel, H., Billig, M. G., Bundy, R. P., & Flament, C. (1971), Social categorization and intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1, 149–178.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W.G. Austin & S. Worchel (eds). The social psychology of intergroup relations. Monterey, CA: Books/Cole.
Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. The social psychology of groups. New York, NY: Wiley.
Toi, M., & Batson, C. D. (1982). More evidence that empathy is a source of altruistic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 281-92.
Vang, M.H., & Fox, J. (2014). Race in Virtual Environments: Competitive Versus Cooperative Games with Black or White Avatars. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 17(4), 235-240.
Wedekind, C., Seebeck, T., Bettens, F., & Paepke, A.J. (1995). MHC-dependent mate preferences in humans. Proceedings of the Royal Society Biological Sciences, 260, 245–249.
Walster, E., Walster, G., & Berscheid, E. (1978) Equity: Theory and research. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Wispé, L. G. (1972). Positive forms of social behaviour: An overview. Journal of Social Issues, 28, 1-19.
Last updated
