Flashcards
Relationships and Wellbeing
Cards in this deck (31)
- 1What does the buffering hypothesis suggest?The first explanation is the buffering hypothesis which suggests that relationships buffer stress and therefore improve psychological wellbeing.
- 2What suppporting evidence did Cochrane (1988) find?Cochrane (1988) looked at relationship status and admission to hospital and found the rate of admission as follows: married (0.26%), single (0.77%), widowed (0.98%) and divorced (1.4%). It’s clear from this, the closer the relationship the better the buffer and they concluded that this is because social support protects against stress.
- 3What supporting evidence did Brown and Harris (1978) find?Brown and Harris (1978) also provided supporting evidence but they looked at depression rates. It’s recognised that stress increases the likelihood of getting depression. Brown and Harris found that those with a supportive husband had a 10% rate of depression compared the 41% in those who had an unsupportive husband.
- 4How can Sunderland and Davis' (1989) conclusions be applied to this?Sutherland and Davidson’s (1989) conclusions can be applied to this – lack of support from partner/spouse leads to poor metal well-being, anxiety and depression. This suggests that it’s not simply the relationship but rather the quality of the relationship that provides social support and therefore buffers from stress.
- 5How is reliability for the buffering hypothesis high?It’s clear from these many studies that support the notion of the buffering hypothesis that reliability of the theory is high as the findings have been consistently reproduced.
- 6What did Holmes and Rahe (1967) find that supports the idea that the buffering hypothesis does explain negative impacts of relationships?However, the buffering hypothesis doesn’t consider negative impacts of relationships. For example Holmes and Rahe (1967) found from their social readjustment scale that stress is caused by the death of a spouse and marriage so relationships can be a source of stress as much as they are a buffer from it.
- 7What's wrong with the correlational nature of the findings?Moreover, even supporting studies have only found correlations between close relationships and psychological wellbeing and correlation doesn’t necessarily imply causation.
- 8Why is looking at just mental illnesses an issue?Furthermore, most of the supportive studies have just looked at rates of mental illness in those with and without close relationships but is the absence of a mental illness really a reflection of psychological wellbeing?
- 9Why is looking at just social support reductionist and how does Kendler et al's (1985) findings about schizophrenia support this?It’s reductionist to consider just social support in relation to stress as stress is complex and may be caused by things like genetic predisposition – e.g. Kendler et al (1985) found those with a first degree relative with schizophrenia are 18 times more likely to develop it themselves which may lead to stress.
- 10Why does the buffering hypothesis only consider nature?The buffering hypothesis only considers nurture (social support) and not nature – it doesn’t consider the interplay of social support and neural plasticity in relationships and their impact on psychological wellbeing and development of mental illnesses.
- 11Why is the BH predictive rather than explanatory?Therefore, the buffering hypothesis is predictive rather than explanatory as it predicts that social support reduces stress and increases psychological wellbeing but doesn’t really say how – does social support change our brain structure or cognition or unconscious thoughts?
- 12Why can't cause and effect not be established?Moreover, cause and effect can’t really be established either – low social support could be a consequence of mental illness rather than the cause.
- 13What is the second explanation and what did Bowlby (1944, 1956) find about monotropy?Another reason why relationships are so integral to psychological wellbeing is provided by attachment theory. Bowlby (1944,1956) suggested that children make a primary attachment with one parent/carer (monotropy) which acts as a secure base and the prototype for exploration.
- 14What did he belive there was a causal relationship between?He believed that there will be a causal relationship between an individual’s experience with the parent and their capacity to form affectionate bonds later on in adult life. If the child receives love and support it will give them a sense of self-worth, the confidence to explore and the precondition for a mutually supportive adult relationship. The concept is based on the idea that secure attachment together with secure exploration will lead to psychological security.
- 15How did Sherrinings (2011) find support for this?Sherrinings 2011 found support –children who’d formed a successful attachment to parents had greater self-esteem, faster memory recall, more empathy, better impulse control and were better at dealing with stress.
- 16Why is reliability high?The many studies supporting attachment theory has led to its high reliability
- 17How have Hazan and Shaver (1987) extended attachment theory?Hazan and Shaver (1987) have even extended it to adult attachment – they found a strong positive correlation between close relationship with parents and quality of adult relationship.
- 18How does attachment theory also consider nature? Give evidence. It has also considered different elements such as nature – maltreatment or disorganised attachment leads to a high state of anxiety which has an impact on brain development (Schofield and Simmonds 2011). This suggests that the experience of the child with the parent (nurture) interacts with brain development (nature).
- 19What contradictory evidence did Shaffer and Emerson (1964) find to do with multiple attachments?However, Shaffer and Emerson (1964) found that children form multiple attachments from 18 months onwards which contradicts Bowlby’s concept of monotropy.
- 20What did Rutter (1972) find?Rutter (1972) found that indications of attachment (protest/distress when attached person leaves) are shown for a variety of figures (e.g. father, sibling, peers, inanimate objects).
- 21How can attachment theory be criticised for being reductionist?So attachment theory can be criticized for being reductionist as it focuses mainly on primary attachment but this has been addressed Hazan and Shaver (1987).
- 22Evaluate Hazan and Shaver's (1967) findingsHowever it could be argued that the adult attachment looked at by Hazan and Shaver (1987) is subject to the social desirability bias as it’s based on self report questions. Moreover it’s retrospective and therefore subject to memory distortions reducing validity.
- 23What else does attachment theory fail to explain?Attachment theory also doesn’t explain early abusive experiences which lead the child to be a better parent later in life (learning from parents’ error).
- 24What is the third reason?The third reason why relationships benefit psychological wellbeing is their positive impact on self esteem.
- 25How did Krause (1987) find support for this in older adults?Krause (1987) found that older adults with increased social support (e.g. love, care, trust) were less depressed mainly due to the influence of emotional support and increase in self esteem.
- 26What is the significance of this research?This research provides an insight into psychological wellbeing in elderly people and how to improve it so has possible implications for treatment. It also shows the significance of having relationships and self esteem on mental disorders.
- 27How did Druley and Townsend (1998) extend on this?Druley and Townsend (1998) extended on this and stated that self esteem only improved in unhealthy people which suggest that we rely on others when we’re stressed. Both of these findings suggest that social support increases self esteem.
- 28How are abusive relationships overlooked by this explanation?However abusive relationships can lead to lower self esteem – this is overlooked by this explanation which suggests that relationships increase self esteem. This notion that abusive relationships lowers and negatively impacts self esteem is supported by the reward need satisfaction theory as if the dynamics of the relationship are not balanced then self esteem will inevitably be affected.
- 29Why is it difficult to extablish cause and effect?It’s also difficult to establish cause and effect because those with higher self esteem are more likely to seek social support – this is a threat to the validity of the theory as the theory suggests that social support leads to self esteem.
- 30How is there support for self esteem theory provided by attachment theory?. However there’s also support for the benefits of relationships on self esteem from attachment theory and self esteem adds a new element to the buffering of stress by social support. Attachment theory suggests that even at a young age, parental attachment is significant in developing self esteem which is essential to explore the world and is the foundation for future relationships. Self esteem of a child being high gives them the confidence required to explore and form new relationships and is the key in their personal development and psychological wellbeing.
- 31What can be concluded about the 3 explantations and their impact on psychological wellbeing?No individual explanation highlights all the benefits of relationship on psychological wellbeing as it would be reductionist to say that just social support or just self esteem is the sole reason why relationships are beneficial – it’s the interaction of these explanations (buffering hypothesis, attachment theory and self esteem) which gives a holistic view of the benefits.
Information
- Description
- A-Level psychology A2 (Condensed essays) Flashcards on Relationships and Wellbeing , created by kiruthicka on 17/05/2015.
- Created by
- kiruthicka
- Views
- 7
- Rating