3.3 Human Relationships Questionbank

Source 1: Researchers surveyed 800 university students (200 from each of four cultural groups: Sweden, Japan, Brazil, and Kenya). Students rated the question “How much do you trust a close friend?” on a 10-point scale. Responses of 8–10 were categorized as indicating “high trust.”

Source 2: Researchers were interested in investigating how adults from different cultural backgrounds experience and describe interpersonal trust. They conducted semi-structured interviews with 15 participants (8 from collectivist backgrounds and 7 from individualist backgrounds). The interviews were recorded and transcribed, and the transcripts were subjected to thematic analysis by two independent researchers. The researchers first identified categories (themes) separately, then compared their coding, and finally re-coded the transcripts together.

Source 3: An undergraduate student was interested in exploring differences in reported trust levels between students from individualist and collectivist cultural backgrounds. They recruited 50 participants from their own university (aged 18–22). Participants were asked two questions: “Rate your general trust in others on a scale from 1 to 10.” “State your cultural background.” Based on self-reported backgrounds, 28 participants were categorized as individualist and 22 as collectivist. The researcher summarized the data as follows:

Source 4: In a survey of 120 adult participants, aged between 30 and 50, (40 each from the USA, Japan, and Mexico), researchers administered two standardized scales: Collectivism Scale (1–7), wherein higher scores indicate stronger collectivist orientation, and the General Trust Scale (1–10) where higher scores indicate greater general trust in others. r(118) = 0.47, p < 0.01

Source 5: Researchers tested 120 participants (60 collectivist background, 60 individualist background) in a trust game with real money. Each participant received £10 and could choose how much to share with a partner.

Condition 1: Partner described as an “in-group” member.

Condition 2: Partner described as randomly assigned.

The researchers found that collectivist participants shared significantly more with in-group members (mean = £4.80). On the other hand, individualist participants shared more with randomly assigned partners (mean = £5.10). Overall sharing did not differ significantly across groups, but it is suggested that cultural framing influenced the trigger of trust.

Okafor and Stein (2012) conducted an experimental study on whether oxytocin influences cooperation in social interactions. The aim was to test if oxytocin administration increases trust and cooperative behaviour.

Eighty participants were randomly assigned to inhale either oxytocin or a placebo before engaging in a series of trust games. In these games, Player 1 was given a sum of money and could choose how much to send to Player 2, knowing that the amount sent would be tripled. Player 2 then decided how much to return to Player 1. Cooperation was measured by how much participants sent and returned.

Results showed that participants who received oxytocin sent significantly more money and returned larger amounts, suggesting enhanced cooperation. However, cultural differences emerged: the effect was stronger in participants from collectivist backgrounds than in individualist ones.

[Note: Fictionalised but draws on Kosfeld et al. (2005) and later cultural studies.]

A couples therapist asks clients to describe how they form first impressions of potential partners. Many report relying on quick judgments rather than carefully evaluating all the available information.

Source 1: A team of researchers who were interested in prosocial behaviour wanted to investigate whether intrinsic vs. extrinsic motivation influenced helping behaviour. They recruited 180 participants from an ad in the newspaper, the adults were randomly assigned to three conditions (N = 60 per group):

Intrinsic prime: Participants wrote about values that made them feel connected to others.

Extrinsic prime: Participants wrote about rewards they hoped to earn in the future.

Control: Participants began the experiment with an unrelated writing task.

The participants were not informed about the actual aim of the study, they believed the writing task was the extent of the experiment. As the participants left the room, they observed a staged event in which a confederate “accidentally” dropped a stack of books. The key measure was whether participants helped pick them up.

Source 2: Psychologists at a certain research institute were interested in exploring what motivates long-term caregiving in familial relationships. The researching team reached out to a local medical center to create a sample of adults who were either: a) parents of disabled children, or b) adult children caring for elderly children. The sample was comprised of 20 participants. Researchers carried out semi-structured interviews with each participant, recording and transcribing the interactions. The transcripts underwent thematic analysis.

Source 3: An undergraduate student studying psychology conducted a survey as part of an assignment. They wanted to examine why students help their fellow peers. The researcher chose to survey students outside their own psychology class. The final sample included 60 classmates, aged between 18-20. The student researcher administered a survey asking students the open-ended question: “Why do you help your friends?” The researcher then coded the responses into three categories of motivation:

Intrinsic motivation: Responses that suggest individuals help because they want to.

Reciprocity: Responses that suggest individuals help expecting help in return.

Emotional reward: Responses that suggest individuals help because it feels good.

Source 4: Researchers in a university psychology department were in the process of putting together a book about altruism and prosocial behaviour. As part of their publication, they included a study wherein they tested whether intrinsic motivation predicted real-world social behaviour. The sample of the study included 250 university students, spread across years and ranging from 17 to 23 years old. The researchers determined the intrinsic motivation of individuals by administering a standardised test that quantified the level of intrinsic motivation on a scale (1-7). Researchers also asked individuals to report the average number of hours they spent volunteering per month. r(248) = 0.623, p < 0.05

Source 5: Researchers wanted to conduct an experiment to test whether extrinsic social recognition influenced charitable giving. Unfortunately, the sample chosen by the researchers consisted of second-year psychology students, as these were the only individuals who had time to participate in the study. The participants were randomly assigned two one of two conditions:

Public condition: Participants told that names of donors displayed on a visible donor list.

Private condition: Participants told that donations were made anonymously.

On tablet screens, participants in each condition were asked if they would donate money to the cause, and how much (scale of £1 to £10)

Kumar and Delgado (2019) examined predictors of divorce in a 10-year longitudinal study of married couples. Their aim was to identify whether communication patterns and stress regulation during conflicts predicted long-term relationship outcomes.

The study followed 150 couples from early marriage over a decade. Every two years, couples completed questionnaires about marital satisfaction and stress levels. In addition, they participated in videotaped conflict-resolution tasks where they discussed ongoing disagreements while researchers coded their interactions for hostility, defensiveness, and problem-solving strategies. Salivary cortisol samples were collected to measure physiological stress.

Results indicated that couples who displayed high levels of hostility and poor stress regulation during conflict were significantly more likely to divorce within ten years. By contrast, couples who used positive communication strategies and showed stable cortisol levels were more likely to remain married. Researchers noted some attrition; many couples dropped out.

[Note: Fictionalised but draws on Gottman’s research.]

Source 1: A clinic that specialised in couples therapy enlisted a team of researchers to explore predictors of relationship satisfaction in young adult couples. The researcher team was curious about the connection between the frequency of daily texting and/or instant messaging and relationship satisfaction. The participants included over 400 young adults in long-term romantic relationships, enrolled through an online ad; the age of participants varied between 18 and 30. Individuals filled out a virtual questionnaire that asked them to report the average number of messages exchanged daily with their partner, and relationship satisfaction on a 1–10 scale (scale was on a slider that allowed decimal values). Based on message frequency, participants were grouped into three categories:

Source 2: The same team of researchers mentioned in Source 1 also conducted a qualitative study on how couples experience technology in their relationships. The researchers randomly picked 15 couples from online volunteers, ages of the individuals varied from 25 to 40. Each couple participated in semi-structed interviews with a researcher. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed between researchers for recurring themes.

Source 3 An undergraduate student with an interest in technology and the psychology of human relationships wanted to explore whether friendships formed online would be considered as important as offline ones. The sample included 50 university students, all peers or friends, that were aged between 18 and 22. The student researcher sent the participants a short survey that asked: a) “Do you have any “close” online friends?” and b) “Are your online friendships as important as your offline ones?” The open-ended responses were coded by the student researcher into categories like “Yes” and “No”. The researcher discovered the following: 62% of the sample reported having at least one close online friend, and of those, 48% said their online friendships were as important as offline ones.

Source 4 A large-scale correlational study was conducted with the intention of examining whether time spent on social media was related to loneliness. The study consisted of 600 individuals, spanning between 16 and 30; the sample consisted of individuals who frequented the campus wherein this study took place. Participants self-reported the daily hours spent on social media, and also completed the UCLA Loneliness Scale (higher scores = greater loneliness, scale of 20-80). r= 0.598, p < 0.05

Source 5 An experiment investigated how the presence of a mobile phone affected interpersonal conversation. The sample consisted of 120 adults (over the age of 18) who were strangers to each other and paired randomly. Each pair engaged in 10 minutes of conversation before being asked to rate the quality of the conversation on a scale of 1-10. Pairs were randomly assigned to one of two conditions:

Phone present: Participants were allowed to have phones on the table, and look at them at any time if they wanted to.

No phone: No phones were present.

Researchers found that in the “phone present” condition, the mean rating of conversations was 6.1. In the “no phone” condition, the mean rating was 7.8.