IB DP Psychology: Option: Psychology of human relationships – Study Guide

This option looks at how people connect with each other, how they behave in groups and why they sometimes help or fail to help strangers. It draws on ideas from social, cognitive and evolutionary explanations of behaviour, so it rewards students who can move between levels of analysis instead of repeating one theory.

Where this fits in the course

The option is assessed through extended responses that ask you to use research, make judgements and organise an argument. As with other options, the exact content list differs between course versions, so use this page to build understanding and then match it to your teacher’s outline. The three broad areas covered here are personal relationships, group dynamics and social responsibility.

Personal relationships

Why relationships form

Evolutionary explanations propose that preferences in partners developed because they helped our ancestors to survive and reproduce. Buss’s large cross-cultural survey of mate preferences, which drew on samples from dozens of societies, is the classic piece of evidence. It reported broad similarities between cultures, such as the high value placed on kindness and intelligence, together with sex differences in some preferences. Critics note that questionnaires measure stated preferences rather than real choices, that samples were not equally representative of every society, and that cultural and economic factors can produce similar patterns without evolution.

Social and cognitive explanations point to proximity, familiarity, similarity and reward. We are more likely to form relationships with people we meet often and who resemble us, and relationships are more likely to continue when each partner finds them rewarding.

Cultural influences matter too: the degree to which partners are chosen by individuals or by families, and how romantic love is valued, varies across societies. A good answer uses this variation to test claims that preferences are universal.

Communication and change

Gottman’s research on couples identified patterns of conflict talk, including criticism, contempt, defensiveness and stonewalling, that were associated with later relationship breakdown. The work is valuable because it used observation rather than self-report alone, but the findings come from specific samples and the studies are largely correlational.

Theories of why relationships continue or end include social exchange ideas, in which partners weigh rewards against costs, and Rusbult’s investment model, which adds satisfaction, quality of alternatives and the investment already made. The investment model explains why some people stay in unhappy relationships: the commitment they feel depends on more than satisfaction.

Group dynamics

Cooperation, competition and conflict

Sherif’s Robbers Cave study put boys at a summer camp into two groups and observed rivalry when the groups competed for limited rewards. Hostility fell when the groups worked towards shared goals that neither could achieve alone, which Sherif called superordinate goals. It supports realistic conflict theory, the idea that competition over resources breeds conflict. Ethical and methodological criticisms are standard: the participants were children who did not give informed consent in the modern sense, and the researchers manipulated events as part of the field experiment.

Prejudice and discrimination

Social identity theory, developed by Tajfel and Turner, says that people derive part of their self-concept from group membership and tend to favour their ingroup. Tajfel’s minimal group studies are used to show that even trivial and arbitrary categories can produce ingroup favouritism. Distinguish carefully between prejudice (an attitude), stereotypes (generalised beliefs) and discrimination (behaviour).

Reducing conflict

Allport’s contact hypothesis proposes that contact between groups reduces prejudice under certain conditions, including equal status, common goals, cooperation and institutional support. Evaluation points include whether the effects generalise beyond the individuals involved, and the difficulty of creating the right conditions outside a controlled setting.

Social responsibility

Bystanders and helping

Darley and Latané’s 1968 experiment tested the idea of diffusion of responsibility. Participants talked over an intercom and believed another person was having a seizure. The more people a participant believed were present, the less likely they were to report it quickly. Darley and Latané also argued that people first have to notice an event and decide whether it is truly an emergency before they can act. Piliavin and colleagues’ subway study found that helping was often quick, and that factors such as the victim’s appearance could influence it, which complicates a simple bystander effect. Together the studies show how a clear finding in a laboratory can look different in the field.

Promoting prosocial behaviour

Prosocial behaviour includes helping, sharing and cooperating. Explanations include empathy-based accounts, social norms such as reciprocity and social responsibility, and evolutionary ideas such as kin selection. Reducing barriers to action, such as providing clear information on how to help, is an application you can discuss.

Worked example: interpreting bystander data

The data below are fictional, for practice only.

A researcher stages a minor emergency in a university corridor. In the alone condition, 60 participants pass the scene one at a time and 45 offer help. In the group condition, 60 participants pass in groups of four and 21 offer help.

Step 1: calculate the helping rates. Alone: 45 / 60 = 0.75, so 75%. Group: 21 / 60 = 0.35, so 35%.

Step 2: compare. The difference is 75% - 35% = 40 percentage points. The helping rate in groups is 35 / 75, which is about 0.47, or just under half of the rate for individuals.

Step 3: interpret. The result is consistent with the idea of diffusion of responsibility. But it does not prove that mechanism, because participants in groups could also have been influenced by what others did, or by the belief that someone more qualified would respond. In the group condition the unit of behaviour is also more complex, because you count one participant out of a group of four.

Step 4: evaluate. Strengths: a clear comparison with the same number of participants per condition. Limitations: a university sample limits generalisation, and a staged emergency may not feel real. A full answer also notes that an ethical review would need to consider the distress caused to unknowing participants and the need for debriefing.

Common mistakes

• Writing about a study without saying what question it addresses.
• Confusing prejudice, stereotyping and discrimination.
• Describing the bystander effect as inevitable, when research shows many situations where people help.
• Offering evolutionary explanations as proven rather than as plausible accounts with limited testable evidence.
• Forgetting cultural factors when claiming a finding applies to all people.
• Presenting a study’s date, number of participants or results from vague memory. If unsure, describe the finding in words.

Exam technique

Read the command term first. Contrast and compare need explicit points of similarity or difference, not two separate descriptions. Discuss needs more than one perspective and a reasoned conclusion. Evaluate requires strengths and limitations of theories, methods or applications. Explain requires cause and reason.

Plan an essay with an introduction that defines key terms, two or three arguments built around named research, and a conclusion that answers the question. For each study you use, show its relevance, comment on method, sampling, ethics or generalisability, and link it back to the question. A precise paragraph on one or two well-chosen studies will score better than a long list of unconnected evidence.

Check your understanding

1. Distinguish between prejudice and discrimination. Prejudice is an attitude; discrimination is behaviour that treats people unfairly because of group membership.
2. What did Sherif’s Robbers Cave study suggest reduces intergroup hostility? Working towards superordinate goals that required cooperation.
3. Give two conditions in Allport’s contact hypothesis. Any two from equal status, common goals, cooperation, and support from authorities or institutions.
4. Why does the investment model help to explain staying in an unhappy relationship? Commitment depends on satisfaction, available alternatives and the investment already made, not satisfaction alone.
5. In the worked example, what is the percentage-point difference in helping? 75% - 35% = 40 percentage points.
6. Give one limitation of using questionnaires to study mate preferences. They record stated preferences rather than actual choices, and may be affected by social desirability.
7. What does Tajfel’s minimal group research suggest? Arbitrary group categories can be enough to produce ingroup favouritism.
8. Name one reason a laboratory study of bystanders may have low ecological validity. The emergency is artificial and participants may not behave as they would in a real incident.

Frequently asked questions

What are the three areas of the IB Psychology human relationships option? This study guide covers personal relationships, group dynamics and social responsibility. The exact content list differs between course versions, so match it to your teacher’s outline.

What did Sherif’s Robbers Cave study show? Rivalry grew when two groups of boys competed for limited rewards, and hostility fell when they worked towards superordinate goals that neither group could achieve alone, supporting realistic conflict theory.

What is the difference between prejudice, stereotypes and discrimination? Prejudice is an attitude, a stereotype is a generalised belief about a group, and discrimination is behaviour that treats people unfairly because of their group membership.

What conditions does Allport’s contact hypothesis require? Contact between groups reduces prejudice under conditions including equal status, common goals, cooperation and support from authorities or institutions.