Image courtesy of Erika Smith via World History Encyclopedia.
The hallmark of scientific research is a controlled experiment that carefully alters one variable while holding the rest constant, allowing scientists to make rigorous claims about causation in natural phenomena. But what happens when we’re faced with phenomena as elusive to study as social interaction?
Such is the challenge of Yale psychologist Margaret Clark and her colleagues in the Clark Relationship Science Laboratory, which studies interpersonal relations. In particular, Clark’s lab focuses on communal relationships—those in which we take some sort of responsibility and support each other when needs arise, often found within families, friendships, and romantic partnerships.
As Clark aims to explain the dynamics of communal relationships, she must look for ways to scientifically measure them. It often starts with a question, which may be raised by previous research or might come from her own observations. One day, someone in her lab raised a particularly difficult question: why are some people idealized by their partners, and others villainized?
Clark and her colleagues hypothesized that people with low self-esteem practice both idealization and villainization at different times. “You idealize them to make them seem worth approaching, to make it seem safe to approach them, but you also have to self-protect, so what if they do something wrong? So then you have to switch,” Clark explained.
With a hypothesis in hand, the researchers designed an experiment where they presented positive and negative traits to different people who were surveyed for their self-esteem; they then asked them if they agree or disagree about whether that trait describes their partner. In half the rounds, they presented all of the positive words together; in the others, they presented the positive and negative words in a mixed order. They believed that those with low self-esteem who switch between idealizing and villainizing their partner mentally group all their partner’s positive attributes separately from their negative attributes. Thus, they would respond more quickly when the positive words were presented together. They found that participants who reported low self-esteem had much faster reaction times when the positive and negative words were presented in separate groups, whereas people with high self-esteem had no difference in reaction times.
The rigor of their results remains a constant concern on Clark’s mind. “It’s a slow process,” Clark said. “It takes being very careful because—more so than in other domains—you have to rule out alternative explanations.” Each study must first stand up to scrutiny on its own. That is, the empirical data must support her conclusions and show that the phenomena exist.
Additionally, strong studies do not just stand on their own, but must also build upon previous studies. Clark has found that it requires the agreement of many independently rigorous studies to convince people of overarching theories about relationships. For instance, many agreeing papers have shown trust is an almost universal skill found in good communal relationships. Going forward, Clark’s lab will continue to uncover the intricacies of communal relationships and emotional expression, in hopes of providing explanations for the most complex interpersonal interactions in our lives.