psychedteam.weebly.compsychedteam.weebly.com/uploads/5/1/7/2/51726603/hr_structured_notes.docx · Web viewis briefly explained, sometimes more helpfully than at others. This is intended

Page | 2

Human Relationships structured notesHow to use these notes:

- Each of the learning outcomes for this topic is set out before you. - The command term is briefly explained, sometimes more helpfully than at

others. This is intended to help you to understand the sort of content that should be in your answer, if this is the question that appears in the exam. Remember that the command term can be changed for any equivalent or lower command term, so the wording of the learning outcome isn’t a guarantee of what will be in any exam.

- The indicative content is merely a suggestion from me regarding what could go into an answer that addresses the particular learning outcome (as worded below). What is included is what makes sense to me and, hopefully, is clear enough to point you in one of the many right directions.

General framework (applicable to all topics in the option)H1 To what extent do biological, cognitive and sociocultural factors influence human

relationships?H2 Evaluate psychological research (that is, theories and/or studies) relevant to the study of

human relationships.Social responsibility

H3 Distinguish between altruism and prosocial behaviour.H4 Contrast two theories explaining altruism in humans.H5 Using one or more research studies, explain cross-cultural differences in prosocial behaviour.H6 Examine factors influencing bystanderism.

Interpersonal relationships

H7 Examine biological, psychological and social origins of attraction.H8 Discuss the role of communication in maintaining relationships.H9 Explain the role that culture plays in the formation and maintenance of relationships.

H10 Analyse why relationships may change or end.Violence

H11 Evaluate sociocultural explanations of the origins of violence.H12 Discuss the relative effectiveness of two strategies for reducing violence.H13 Discuss the effects of short-term and long-term exposure to violence.

- The line of argument is something that is relevant only for AO3 level questions. In answering these questions you will be marked on the structure and organisation of your answer and so you need to write it with a clear line of argument running through. This will give cohesion and flow to your answer.

- The space after my typing is intended for you to add your own notes to mine. This is because what I’ve put down are only brief sketches of what might go into an answer, and as we cover additional material in class you may want to note that down so that you create a more comprehensive set of notes that the ones that I’ve given you here.

- I’ve put the assessment criteria on the inside front cover, and the command terms and their definitions at the back as a sort of glossary. These should be used when thinking about how best to answer a question.

- Guard this with your life!- This remains a work in progress. There will be some studies in here that we

end up not using, and some that we will need to put in. Every year things change a little bit; that’s OK, just don’t be too precious about crossing things out – it shows that you’re interacting with the resource.

Page | 3

H1 To what extent do biological, cognitive and sociocultural factors influence human relationships? ‘To what extent…?’ requires judgement within your conclusion.

Any and all studies could be relevant!This would need to be planned before you go into the exam.

Page | 4

H1 cont…

Page | 5

H2 Evaluate psychological research (that is, theories and/or studies) relevant to the study of human relationships.‘Evaluate’ requires consideration of strengths and limitations and needs a judgement in your conclusion.

Any and all studies could be relevant!This would need to be planned before you go into the exam.

Page | 6

H3 Distinguish between altruism and prosocial behaviour.‘Distinguish’ is an AO2 command term and so will be, at most, part of a larger question about altruism. It’s worth a sentence or two..!

Make sure you know your definitions; no studies needed.

Page | 7

H4 Contrast two theories explaining altruism in humans.‘Contrast’ in IB speak requires a consideration only of the differences between theories. ‘Compare and contrast’ may well be used instead.

Kin selection theory: Madsen, Sime, evolutionary benefit must be explained or Darwin’s theory of natural selection fails. Kin selection also known as ‘inclusive fitness’ within evolutionary psychology. (White-fronted bee-eater study?! Fackelmann)Empathy-altruism hypothesis: Batson & Toi, Batson 5

Assuming you’re writing about both theories, I suggest your end point should end up proposing that KST and EAH are, potentially, two different ways of explaining the basic phenomenon of people being more likely to help someone who is more like them, either biologically (KST – shared genetics) or psychologically (EAH – greater empathy with those we can identify with).

Page | 8

H4 cont…

Page | 9

H5 Using one or more research studies, explain cross-cultural differences in prosocial behaviour.‘Explain’ is an AO2 command term and so will be, at most, part of a larger question about prosocial behaviour.

Levine – simpatico cultures more helpful; pen-dropping, papers-dropping and blind person crossing the road.

Answer must include reasons why cultures differ, and the only consistent pattern of behaviour came from those cultures where a sympathetic, caring approach was part of the social norms. Economic productivity was slightly correlated – richer cultures helped less.

Page | 10

H6 Examine factors influencing bystanderism.‘Examine’ requires a consideration of assumptions and/or interrelationships within a topic. Seldom easy to do.

Latané & Darley – five factor model- Failing to notice: Darley & Batson- Pluralistic ignorance: Latané & Darley, smoke-filled room- Diffusion of responsibility: Latané & Darley, radio interviews and

seizure- [action ignorance]- Social inhibition/cost: Piliavin & Rodin, subway man with cane/drunk,

[Test, wheel-changing with/without model]Piliavin & Rodin: race, merit of victim, model of helping

Your answer is likely to follow L&D’s model and conclude that there are lots of factors that interact with each other and reduce the likelihood of someone stepping in to help another who is in need.

Page | 11

H6 cont…

Page | 12

H6 cont…

Page | 13

H7 Examine biological, psychological and social origins of attraction.‘Examine’ requires a consideration of assumptions and/or interrelationships within a topic. Seldom easy to do.

Biological:- Buss (1989): women seek providers, men offer resources; men seek

fertility, women offer youth/beauty. One consistent pattern across cultures = direction of preferred age difference.

Psychological:- Walster (1973): playing hard-to-get with everyone makes you appear

attractive but unattainable, so no-one actually wants you. Playing easy-to-get with everyone makes you popular but no-one wants to stay with you. Being ‘selectively easy’ (hard-to-get for everyone but the one you want, for whom you are more approachable) is the best strategy.

- Burne (1971): Perceived similarity..?Social:- Festinger (1951): proximity- Familiarity- Relative attractiveness (Charlie’s Angels!)

Page | 14

H7 cont…

Page | 15

H8 Discuss the role of communication in maintaining relationships.‘Discuss’ means balanced/considered.

- Rogers (1957): conditions for growth must be present and communicated within a relationship for it to be a positive environment within which an individual can reach their full potential.

- Altman & Taylor (1973): social penetration theory – people use communication to define their level of relationship, from clichés through casual sharing to arguments (being honest about disagreements!) and ‘deep sharing’ of hopes, fears, secrets…

- Collins & Miller (1994): meta-analysis of various studies claimed that self-disclosure makes people like you more, you self-disclose more to people you like and you like more those people you disclose to – communication deepens the relationship.

- Bradbury & Fincham (1984): attributional style in a relationship (how you communicate your thoughts about how your partner has behaved) predicts success of relationship – dispositional attributions for positive behaviours and situational attributions for negative behaviours are the healthiest.

Line of argument: Rogers argued that there are particular ingredients to good relationships, and that the key to them all is that they’re communicated effectively so that both parties know that those elements are present. Other research confirms the relevance of Rogers’ three components and makes it clear that authentic communication is essential if a relationship is to be positive and enduring.

Page | 16

H8 cont…

Page | 17

H9 Explain the role that culture plays in the formation and maintenance of relationships.‘Explain’ = low level command term so this is not an essay on its own.

Dion & Dion (1983) – collectivists marry for support and the communityLevine (1995) – individualists marry for themselvesGupta & Singh (1992) – “You marry who you love, we love who we marry.” (Individualist vs collectivist motivation for marriage.)Buss (1994) – Americans ranked love first, Chinese ranked it sixth (domestic skills placed at the top for Chinese).

Page | 18

H10 Analyse why relationships may change or end.‘Analyse’ = AO2 command term not an essay.

Duck (1992) – listed various reasons/patterns relating to the breakdown of marriages:

- Parental divorce makes divorce more likely with their children (SLT? Poor attachment formation? – Hazan & Shaver (1987) argued that poor early attachments make subsequent relationships difficult / Bowlby’s (1950) maternal deprivation hypothesis).

- Different backgrounds make for difficult relationships (cf. perceived similarities as cause of attraction).

- Lower SES marriage less likely to last (low serotonin? Poorer control of testosterone?)

Page | 19

H11 Evaluate sociocultural explanations of the origins of violence.‘Evaluate’ requires you to make a judgement of the efficacy or otherwise of sociocultural explanations of where violence comes from.

SIT: categorise, identify, compare.- Comparison stage: Tajfel suggested in-group favouritism and out-

group derogation that could lead to conflict.- Sherif (1961) argued that competition was necessary for conflict,

disagreeing with Tajfel’s view that different groups would automatically discriminate against others.

DeDreu (2010/11): two studies, one that demonstrated oxytocin (‘attachment’ hormone) increases in-group preference but not out-group derogation and the other study arguing that when the situation requires competition for limited resources oxytocin will also lead to out-group derogation. Biological mechanism underpinning the comparison stage of SIT?Cohen (1998): ‘honour’-based urban street culture associated with high testosterone which is linked to status-seeking behaviour (might be expressed in violence)

Page | 20

H11 cont…

Page | 21

H12 Discuss the relative effectiveness of two strategies for reducing violence.‘Discuss’ means balanced/considered

Olweus Bullying Prevention Programme: school, class, individual and community levels of intervention.- Olweus (1993): two-year longitudinal study found 50% reduction in

self-reported incidents of bullying, general improvement in social climate of the classes, higher student satisfaction, better order and discipline and generally more positive attitude.

- Roland (1993): couldn’t replicate findings in another part of Norway.- Olweus (2003): found lower rate of reduction in observed bullying.- Black (2007): OBPP run in thirteen US schools.

o Half the schools didn’t follow the whole programmeo Observed bullying went downo Student-reported bullying went up on average although most

rigorously-applied programmes found bullying went down.o Concluded that without total commitment to programme it

would be unsuccessful.MACS (Metropolitan Area Child Study) (2002): classroom programme, social skills training and family counselling. Eight year longitudinal study.

o Those from low-risk schools experiencing the full programme showed lowest levels of aggression.

o Students from high-risk schools showed more aggression after the programme than the control group.

o Early intervention with the whole programme is most effective.- Guerra (2006): aggression and popularity can be linked and work

against the aims of the programme.o Argued that looking at overall patterns of behaviour, as MACS

did, means that effectiveness of the programme with specific groups is not measured. The programme could be more effective if appropriately targeted.

Ferguson (2007): whole-school anti-bullying programmes aren’t very effective at all because there are too many social rewards for bullies and they should be tackled as individuals rather than as part of a whole. Targeted programmes work a little better.Line of argument: bullying is an everyday example of violence that causes a lot of problems for young people. Two extensive whole-school programmes have tried to address the issue through intervening at a number of different levels, but with very limited success. The best way of dealing with bullying is to target the interventions carefully at those involved, which will bring about better results and cost far less in terms of time and money.

Page | 22

H12 cont…

Page | 23

H13: Discuss the effects of short-term and long-term exposure to violence.‘Discuss’…NB – ‘short-term’ and ‘long-term’ relate to the length of exposure to violence, rather than to the effects. Please make sure that you remember that should you write this essay.

Short-term:- Shalev (1995): investigated PTSD with 12 survivors of an attack on an

Israeli bus by interviewing them after the attack and then ten months later. At first the victims were upset and had intrusive thoughts but didn’t avoid talking about the event. Ten months later intrusive thoughts had decreased but avoidance had increased, along with significant levels of PTSD being found. This suggests that it could be the amount of violence exposed to rather than the duration, although control is difficult as there has been a lot of terrorist violence in various parts of Israel and each report of a new event is likely to bring with it memories of the explosion, meaning that it’s not clear that the victims had actually had only a short-term exposure to violence.

- Schuster et al (2001): telephone-interviewed people from all over US in the days following 9/11, with five questions relating to PTSD. Most respondents were suffering from some degree of stress, with almost half (44%) saying they were very stressed. Levels of television viewing and stress were related for some participants, suggesting that, as with the Shalev study, it’s not very easy to claim that this is actually looking at the effects of short-term exposure to violence: the more participants were exposed to the violence of 9/11 the more stress they tended to feel.

Long-term:- Hyman (1990): LTE to bullying affects children’s daily functioning

including school performance. It can lead to depression and PTSD.- Carney & Hazler (2007): measured cortisol levels in 94 children (aged

9-14) and administered questionnaires. Victims’ and bystanders’ levels went up in anticipation of bullying at lunch time, but LTE to bullying was associated with lowered cortisol levels (due to fatigue in the cortisol process) and this in turn is associated with chronic fatigue syndrome and PTSD. Conclusion was that while short-term stress can be bad, long-term exposure is significantly more harmful.

- Mynard et al (2000): 40% of students in study had experienced bullying with all types being considered stressful. The most harmful psychologically was social exclusion, leading to PTSD. Effects of LTE to bullying included feelings of powerlessness, helplessness and poor self-confidence, all of which are linked to PTSD.

Line of argument: the evidence seems to point to PTSD being one of the key outcomes for people exposed to a significant amount of violence. It’s difficult to separate the effects of short- and long-term exposure to violence because those initially exposed for just a short period of time may well revisit the violence in their thoughts or be exposed to media presentations of the violence, and so validity is not assured. Overall, violence raises stress levels, and prolonged periods of stress can lead to further complications (consider general adaption syndrome) including the development of post-traumatic stress disorder, which then has a serious impact on someone’s life.

Page | 24

Page | 25

H13 cont…

Page | 26

Spare space for extra notes (we had to get this page for the whole thing to be printed as a booklet – I figured I should put something on it!).

Page | 27

IB Command terms

Command terms associated with assessment objective 1: Knowledge and comprehensionDefine

Give the precise meaning of a word, phrase, concept or physical quantity.Describe

Give a detailed account.Outline

Give a brief account or summary.State

Give a specific name, value or other brief answer without explanation or calculation.

Command terms associated with assessment objective 2: Application and analysisAnalyse

Break down in order to bring out the essential elements or structure.Apply

Use an idea, equation, principle, theory or law in relation to a given problem or issue.

DistinguishMake clear the differences between two or more concepts or items.

ExplainGive a detailed account including reasons or causes.

Command terms associated with assessment objective 3: Synthesis and evaluationCompare

Give an account of the similarities between two (or more) items or situations, referring to both (all) of them throughout.

Compare and contrastGive an account of similarities and differences between two (or more) items or situations, referring to both (all) of them throughout.

ContrastGive an account of the differences between two (or more) items or situations referring to both (all) of them throughout.

DiscussOffer a considered and balanced review that includes a range of arguments, factors or hypotheses. Opinions or conclusions should be presented clearly and supported by appropriate evidence.

EvaluateMake an appraisal by weighing up the strengths and limitations.

ExamineConsider an argument or concept in a way that uncovers the assumptions and interrelationships of the issue.

To what extentConsider the merits or otherwise of an argument or concept. Opinions and conclusions should be presented clearly and supported with appropriate evidence and sound argument.

Page | 28

Page | 29

----- Back page -----

Page | 30