Filtering by
- All Subjects: psychology
- Creators: Barrett, The Honors College
It was hypothesized that information about current romantic involvement could make a male target more attractive to females. A 2 (Gender) X 4 (Romantic Involvement: Current Romance, Past Romance, Friend, and Control) factorial design was created to test competing predictions from scarcity/reactance, impression-formation, and sociobiological perspectives. A total of 235 male and female subjects saw a photograph of an opposite gender target person, then read a brief description about the target that contained one of the three involvement manipulations, or contained no involvement manipulation (Control). Subjects then rated the target along a 14 item scale to measure romantic attraction. ANOVA and MANOVA results revealed main effects of Gender and Romantic Involvement. Simple effects for Romantic Involvement were found for female, but not male subjects. A priori contrasts testing the predictions from the competing theoretical perspectives provided support only for the socio-biological prediction for female subjects.
Results of the dating violence assessments were reported as well as the results of a personality assessment. The comparisons between the three relationship assessments were inconclusive. This research should be taken as a guidance into the factors of dating violence by taking into consideration the characteristics and personalities of potential victims. It can also be seen as a snapshot of the current time period on the topic of relationship violence and its ideas and its prevalence.
The research conducted was at Arizona State University in three psychology classes. The results included participants relationships, abuse screening scores, and personality assessments. The True Colors personality test showed that the majority of the participants were associated with being emotion driven.
commits. Outside of the house, there are people speeding, jaywalking, littering, sharing
medication, and driving without seat belts. Inside the house, people are downloading
music/movies, drinking while underage, using (and abusing) social media while under the age of
18, and reading another person’s mail. With so much of a focus on serious crimes, or felonies,
people tend to forget about the everyday actions in America that are also illegal. For example, a
police officer may not do anything if several cars are going well over the speed limit on the
highway, because it is normalized. This paper explores two sides of this issue: the psychological
side and the legal side. The goal is to find out how culpable people really are for their actions
when they do not have the mental intent that the they are determined to have in court. All human
behavior will be divided into two sections (people with non-extreme mental disorders and people
who have total control over their behavior). First, I dive into the complexity of anxiety,
depression, and ADHD, and explain how these disorders will subtly change someone’s behavior.
Next, I examine how actions like speeding and jaywalking and explain how certain illegal
actions have become so normalized that people may not be very guilty, even when they are
knowingly committing these crimes. I use different misdemeanors as examples for each of these
types of behaviors to argue why people should be more culpable (aggravating factors) or less
culpable (mitigating factors) because of their respective predispositions. Finally, I discuss issues
of fixing the criminal justice system such as: how to make all punishments fair/accurate, how to
fix the public’s distrust towards the law, and how to stop these normalized illegal behaviors for
all people, regardless of mental health or intent.