Psychology of Human RelationshipsOutcomes

• To what extent do biological, cognitive, and sociocultural factors influence human relationships?

• Evaluate psychological research (that is, theories and/or studies) relevant to the study of human relationships

Psychology of Human Relationships

• investigates the nature and causes of relationships between people.– Attraction– Friendship– Romantic relationships– Relationship termination– Altruism– Anti-social behaviour– Violence

Methods used:

– Experiments– Interviews– Questionnaires

• Why qualities make these most useful?

Social Responsibility

• Outcomes– Distinguish between altruism and prosocial

behaviour– Contrast two theories explaining altruism in

humans– Using one or more research studies, explain cross-

cultural differences in prosocial behaviour– Examine factors influencing bystanderism

Prosocial behaviour and altruism• Prosocial behaviour – any behaviour intended to benefit others

– Variants of helping behaviour – volunteering, donations, rescuing– Also – factors influencing NOT helping

• Egoistic motivation – prosocial behaviour that benefits the actor intrinsically – makes them feel good

• Altruism – performance of prosocial actions without expectation of self-benefit– Is it possible to derive some level of benefit on any level for prosocial actions?– Psychological hedonism – the idea that the ultimate goal of all behaviour is

seeking pleasure and avoidance of pain• Altruistic motivation – performance of prosocial actions with the

expectation of benefit to others and of a potential cost to the self• Baston (1991) – altruism – a motivational state with the ultimate goal of

increasing another’s welfare

2 theories regarding altruism:

• 1) Empathy-altruism hypothesis • 2) Kin selection hypothesis

Empathy-altruism hypothesis - Baston

1. Empathy - An emotional response generated when another person is perceived to be in need– This emotional response becomes the motivation

to help for another’s sake2. Need – when another person’s current state

is recognized as less than their potential state– Assumes that the observer has the ability to

perceive both states in another

3. Evaluation follows of potential rewards and costs

• Recognition of potential rewards • Recognition of personal distress that would be

reduced if a helping act takes place• OR• The observer adopts the perspective of the

person in need – empathic response

The strength of the empathy is affected by:

• the perception of the magnitude of the need • the strength of the observer’s attachment to

the person in need.***Empathic response lacks personal distress – reduction of this would constitute egoistic response***

Validity and reliability

• What are some validity and reliability problems you can identify – based on your own experience – with studying altruism?

• Testing hypothesis is difficult – impossible to observe the motivation of the actors and motivation may be unknown even to them

Toi and Baston (1982)• Aim – to determine the effects of emotional focus or informational

focus on empathy in observers• Method – female psychology students viewed an interview with a

confederate fellow student who had recently broken both legs. Participants were told to focus on how the victim felt in her interview and others were told to focus on the facts of the story. Participants were also informed that the subject of the interviews may be attending class with them in the future. They were then asked to take notes for the subject for upcoming classes.

• Conclusions – participants told to focus on the emotions of the subject were more likely to respond with note taking. This factor was shown to be more important than the presence of the subject in the class at a later date

Evaluate the following for…

• The methods used to induce altruism• The extent to which the act of giving is

altruistic or egoistic– Current state-potential state perception– Cost-benefit evaluation– Personal distress of the viewer– Empathy– https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dksyep_z-Po

Kin-selection hypothesis

• Evolutionary explanation for altruism• Helping others in your family group will increase the

chances of the gene that caused the helping behaviour to be passed on.

Sime (1983) – unrelated individuals would flee a burning building and get separated, related individuals would stay together and flee as a unit.Simpson and Kendrick (1997) – kin selection results from ingroup bias effects –we are more likely to help people we perceive as similar to us

Madsen et al. (2007)

• Aim – to determine the effect of perceived relation proximity on altruistic behaviour

• Method – participants were asked to assume a painful position for which money would be paid to a relative for the duration of their tolerance. The study was repeated for UK students and South African students

• Conclusion - participants made more of an effort to tolerate the position for relatives that were biologically closer to them.

Cross-cultural factors

• Levine (2001)• Studied prosocial behaviour in several cities

worldwide according to several variables such as population size, and individualism/collectivism and by using observations of helping situations in these cities.

• Focused on concepts of simpatia and simpatico– Generally proactive socio-emotional orientation

and concern with the social well-bring of others

Discussion• Cities were ranked - top Rio de Janeiro, last Kuala Lumpur• Cultural factors – found to be less important but there

was a relationship between high purchasing power and low helping behaviours

• What reasons can you find to explain these differences?• Religion?• Cultural scripts? – simpatia/simpatico• Traditional values?• Industrialization?

Cultural factors• Individualism vs collectivism – prosocial behaviour?• Defined borders between social groups in collectivist

societies - Ingroup vs outgroup favoritism?• Behaviours transmitted during child-rearing (Whiting

and Whiting, 1975)• Frequency of anticipated contacts – population size• Competition for resources –perception of scarcity• Social norms surrounding need and reception of charity

Whatever happened to Kony2012?

• http://faculty.babson.edu/krollag/org_site/soc_psych/darley_samarit.html

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZVon_IbTBw&app=desktop

Bystander Intervention

• Bystanderism – the phenomenon of a person or people not intervening despite the awareness of another person’s need.

Latane and Darley (1970)• Number of bystanders is inversely proportional to

the likelihood someone will intervene– People must notice event– People must assess need in event– People must assume responsibility with knowledge of

positive effect of intervention

Latane and Darley (1968)• Aims – to determine the impact of observer number on the inhibition to intervene in

a helping situation• Method – 72 participants deceived that they were taking part in a study looking at

the personal problems of other students. Participants were isolated and given earphone and a microphone and told that the others were participating aw well but the researcher could not hear anyone. They would listen to a recording of a person’s problems and comment in turns on these. In reality, they were the only ones who could hear the recordings and respond. One of the recorded respondents would ask for help and indicate a seizure was in progress then fall silent. The time taken to forgo the experiment and notify the experimenter of the distress of the respondent was measured. The number of people the participant believed to be also hearing the respondent was the independent variable.

• Conclusions – the number of people believed to be observing the seizure was important. 85% of people who thought they were alone acted within 2 minutes. 31% if they thought they were with a group of 4, 100% within 6 minutes – alone, 62% - with 4 others

Validity and reliability?

• Diffusion of responsibility – with more witnesses, the responsibility to act is shared and overall obligation drops

• Social influence – in ambiguous situations we look to others for guidance in action taking

• Audience inhibition – inaction from fear of overreacting or committing social blunders

• Others????

Arousal, Cost, Reward – Piliavin et al. (1981)

Arousal – we experience the fight or flight response in observing an emergency. We then desire to act in a way that returns us to a normal state – the higher the arousal, the more likely we are to act. (Amato (1986)• However, if aroused in a state of ambiguity, we are less likely to act as we

will be unsure if acting will reduce the arousal. Sterling and Gartner (1983)Cost-Reward• Cost-reward model – an evaluation of the consequences of intervening. • Cost of intervening – time, effort, danger• Cost of NOT intervening – guilt, social criticism• When the cost of NOT outweigh the cost – action is likelySimilarity, victim attributes and responsibility • Piliavin (1981) – people are more likely to help people similar to them –

race, gender, age, nationality

Piliavin et al. (1969)• Aims – to test the effect of race and victim type on helping behaviour on

a New York subway.• Method – Field experiment – staged emergencies between the same two

stop on a subway carriage. Tow observers, one model who would help after a specified amount of time, and one victim confederate of varying race and character – either an old man with a cane or a drunk.

• Conclusions – spontaneous help - cane; 62 of 65 times, drunk; 19 of 38 times. Helpers were 90% males, 64% white – same as proportion on the train. – Victims who are sick are helped more than those who are drunk – responsible

for own situation– In mixed groups, men more likely to help men, same race more likely to help

same race – Diffusion of responsibility not observed in the cane situation.

Factors moderation bystanderism

• Political affiliation at a protest (Suedfeld et al. , 1972)

• Sport affiliation with victims wearing the same shirt of the observer’s favorite soccer team (Levine et al. 2006)

• Not observed with gender interactions – men more likely to help women especially after viewing erotic films (Przybyla, 1985)

Mood, competence, and experience• Mood – Berkowitz (1987) – effort on behalf of others

was reduced when participants had higher self-awareness.– Self-awareness linked to bad moods.– Being in a good mood encourages attraction to strangers

and attention to positive features• Competence - Huston et al (1981) - interviews of those

who had intervened in criminal events showed they tended to be larger, heavier, had more training in police or medical, self-described as principled and aggressive

• Experience – Pantin and Carver (1982) – being shown a first aid video increased action in a choking situation

Interpersonal relations

Outcomes• Examine biological, psychological and social

origins of attraction• Discuss the role of communication in

maintaining relationships• Explain the role that culture plays in the

formation and maintenance of relationships• Analyze why relationships may change or end

Attraction – theories regarding the origin of formation of relationships

1. Biological factors – eg. Genetics and evolution2. Cognitive factors – schemas and group formation3. Socio-cultural factors – gender and cultural

influences in mate selection– Applies to romantic and friend selection

Gross and Crofton (1977) – ratings of attractiveness are higher for photos of people about whom participants have just read a favorable story.

Opposite sex attraction

Evolutionary approach - Buss (1994) identified two aspects of sexual selection:1. Male ritual behaviour – displays of dominance2. Characteristics that increase attractiveness to

femalesMales would have evolved to conform to these two principles, females would conform their preferences to these as well

Female preferred characteristics:

• Ambition• Dependability• Intelligence• Height• Good healthBuss – females in majority of countries rate social status of males as more important than males do in females

Male desired characteristics• Males tend to be attracted to youth and health – reproductive

ability• Culture wide evidence of age disparity in coupling - males older

by two years• Buss (1994) – age differences by marriage; 1st - 3 years, 2nd – 5

years, 3rd – 8+years– Smooth skin– Full lips– Lustrous hair– Facial and body symmetry

• Evidence shows that male preference for body shape affected by resource availability – food scarcity causes preferences to change

Singh (1994) – men interested in fat distribution rather than overall body mass. Ideal - Hip to waist ratio of .7

Same sex attraction

• Homosexual men similar to heterosexual men in preference – 1) youth and 2) health

• Homosexual women similar to heterosexual women in preference – however, less interested in body shape

Function of attraction• Hypothalamus triggers arousal – conscious or

unconsciously. However, thoughts alone can cause arousal but thoughts alone cannot trigger attraction.

Pheromones

• Wedekind et al (1995) – asked men to wear a clean shirt for two nights and then had women rate the smell of the shirts for attraction. Both men and women were then screened for genetic immune system characteristics. Ratings of attractiveness were correlated with the gene tests.

• Greater difference in genotype correlated with higher ratings of attraction. This would provide a reproductive advantage to have a diversity in genetic structure.

Social and cognitive origins of attraction

• Proximity• Familiarity• Reciprocity• Similarity• Social comparison• Reward Theory• Gain-loss hypothesis

Proximity

• People we are around more are more likely to become our friends or partners. Festinger et al. (1950) – 65% of pairs of university friends lived in the same building, 44% were neighbours. As distance increases, the friendships decrease.

• This must also include the likelihood of interaction not just proximity (Darley and Berscheid, 1967)

Familiarity• People find faces more attractive the more often they see them

(Jorgensen and Cervone, 1978) “mere exposure effect” – the more often we see a person the more attractive we will find them.

• Moreland and Beach (1992) – students rated research assistants as more attractive the more often they had appeared in their class.

• Mita et al (1977) – we rate our own face and the faces of others as less attractive as a mirror image. More common to see the photo face rather than the mirror image face. Effect reversed for ourselves – we rate our mirror face higher than our photo face.

Reciprocity

• We are more attracted to those who are attracted to us.

• Dittes and Kelley (1956) – anonymous feedback given to participants of a group discussion regarding the attitudes of the other participants toward them. The subjects reported more attraction to those group members they believed liked them.

Similarity

• We experience a more powerful attraction to those who are similar to us in terms of values, beliefs and attitudes.

• Aronson and Cope (1968) - participants were more likely to respond for a help request to a supervisor who they had just witnessed chiding another person for being rude, they were also more likely to respond to a request if the supervisor and third person were both kind.

• Matching phenomenon – cognitive process in which moderates attraction favoring those who somehow match us.

Social comparison

• Moderates ratings of attractiveness. A person appears more attractive when preceded by less attractive individuals and less attractive when preceded by more attractive individuals.

• Kenrick and Gutierres (1980) – subjects rated women less attractive after watching T.V. show Charlie’s Angels

Reward Theory• Function of operant and classical conditioning. We are

more likely to spend time with people who make us feel good or confer social status or other benefit. People associated with positive emotions become a source of positive emotions themselves. Extended to our tendency to like people who remind us of other positive relationships that have conferred benefits such as parents.

• Lewicki (1995) – subjects rated friendliness of facial images. When rating images similar to faces of experimenters with whom they had a positive experience, the images were rated as more friendly.

Gain-loss hypothesis

• We are more likely to like someone if we initially disliked them but now have changed our views.

• Aronson and Linder (1965) - evaluations moving from negative to positive increase liking

Communication and RelationshipsFocused on romantic relationships but not exclusive.• Dindia and Canary (1993) – 4 types of relationship maintenance:

– Continuing a relationship– Keeping a relationship in a specified state– Keeping a relationship in a satisfactory state– Preventing or correcting relationships

• Centripetal forces – drive relationships together, eg. Communication/conversation

• Centrifugal forces – drive relationships apart, eg. Distance, time• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-son3EJTrU

Canary and Stafford (1994) – 5 relationship maintenance strategies:

• Positivity – positive demeanor, doing favors, spontaneity• Openness – establishing joint history, disclosures• Assurances – comfort, affirming commitment, checking on status of partner• Social networking – doing things with mutual friends• Sharing tasks – completing tasks togetherGottman’s magic ratio – emphasizes positivity in relationship – successful relationships must maintain positive statements or acts must outweigh negative ones by 5:1. • Limitations on relationship research:• Strongly correlational – bidirectional ambiguity• Relies heavily on self-reported data – lacks reliability and subject to bias• Does not account for individual differences in maintenance strategies across

genders and cultures

Weingel and Ballard-Reisch (1999) -3 communication types in relationships:

• Traditional – couple view themselves as interdependent, communicate well but avoid or deny conflicting issues

• Independent – more freedom and egalitarian roles, negotiate and renegotiate relationship, confront conflicts

• Separate – less expressive

Weingel and Ballard-Reisch (1999)• Studied 141 heterosexual couples using questionnaires containing

relationship maintenance strategy use, type of relationship, levels of satisfaction and levels of commitment. Couples were mostly Caucasian, distributed by students to couples they knew. Median length of marriage was 10 years.

• Traditional couples used more strategies than separates• Separates used less openness and assurance• Traditional couples used social networking and sharing tasks

differently• No significant differences in satisfaction levels although within

groups specific strategies were correlated with higher levels of satisfaction, commitment, and love.

• Reliability, validity, and ethical concerns with this study?

Culture and Relationships• Most research on relationships has focused on individualistic

societies• Large proportion of arranged marriages are successful

– Buss (1990) – universals in attraction of mates still exist but cultural differences exist in traditional cultures where chastity and home making skills are more valued in women.

– Yelsma and Athappilly (1998) – while collectivist societies find mate selection for males easier than Western societies where the emphasis is on romance and passion, this has little impact on reports of marital satisfaction.

Validity and reliability issues – most research involves questionnaires - responses subject to cognitive dissonance, bias, and cultural norms against discussing relationship difficulties

Ahman and Reid (2008)

• Definitions of “good marriage” differ across cultures. Indo-Pakistani marriages emphasize religion, financial security, and high status. Snowball sample used to discover particular communication styles in arranged marriages.

• Findings –traditional marriages showed less satisfaction and more listening to respond rather than listening to understand. Expectations of equality in relationships led to increased listening to understand and subsequent increases in satisfaction.

Ending Relationships• Model for the growth and termination of relationships

through 10 stepsKnapp and Vangelesti (1996) Coming together• Initiation – first meeting, first impressions formed• Experimenting – small talk, testing and establishing common

ground• Intensifying – friendship formation, disclosures occur• Integrating – separate lives become linked, common plans.

Public awareness of relationship – use of “we”• Bonding – overt ritual of commitment – ceremony, co-

habitation, engagement, etc.

Knapp and Vangelisti (1996) Coming apart• Differentiating – differences become more obvious,

arguments, use of “I” and “my”• Circumscribing – avoidance of difficult topics,

communication is restricted though public couple persona is maintained

• Stagnating – maintaining relationship as aversion to greater pain of break-up. Deepening restriction of communication.

• Avoiding – avoidance of contact with partner, expressions of disinterest.

• Terminating – preparation for individuality, physical distancing/separation

Issues with Knapp and Vangelisti (1996)

• This offers a description but not an explanation of changes in relationships.

• Key emphasis on communication• Applies to friendships as well as romantic pair-

bonding• Impact of social-networking, online

communication?

Other theories in relationship termination

• Duck (1985) – relationships are filtered based on sociological factors, how and where we allow ourselves to get involved in relationships. Pre-interaction information and post interaction information – cognitive cues, biases, prejudices, etc,

• Causes of breakdown in relationships – (Duck 1982)– Predisposing personal factors – personal habits and cultural

differences causing background instability and resentment. – Precipitating factors – can be external or internal, work

interventions, extended absences, or infidelity

Levinger (1980) – relationships end when…

1. No other possible resolution exists. 2. Other partners present themselves3. Expectation of failure is present4. Lack of commitment• Byrne and Clore (1970) – learning theory – classically

conditioned association between difficult times and a lack of partner support or reinforcement

• Canary and Dainton(2003) – relationships are destined to fail – problems become catalysts rather than causes.

Kurdek (1991)• 13 homosexual couples who had broken up in the course of a long

term study of homosexual relationships. Inductive content analysis of responses:

Causes cited for ending relationships• Non-responsiveness• Sexual issues (infidelity)• Fusion – exclusion of self-needs• Incompatibility• Control issues• Breakdown of communication was a key factor in dissolution of

relationship – same as in heterosexual couples.Reliability, validity and ethical strengths and limitations to this study?

Violence

Outcomes• Evaluate sociocultural explanations of the origins

of violence• Discuss the effects of short-term and long-term

exposure to violence• Discuss the relative effectiveness of two

strategies for reducing violence• Focus on socio-cultural origins only – Greater

explanatory power

1) Social Learning Theory - Violence

Bandura – children are morelikely to engage in violent behaviour if exposed to violent model.• Model is similar or authoritative• Observed media• Causing disinhibition or desensitization• Huesmann et al. (1984) – preference for violent T.V. by age 8 has a

strong correlation of peer ratings for violent tendencies by age 18 and with committing violent crime.

• Although….http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2014-11/ica-nlf102814.php

Limitations to S.L.T. approach:

• Research is limited• Ethical limitations on controlled studies• Low ecological validity in studies to remain ethical• Circularity of origin explanation – where do

models originate from if violence originates from models?

• Biological and cognitive factors – hormones, physiological arousal, social and cultural anti-suppression

Strengths of S.L.T. approach:

• High applicability• Convincing non-experimental evidence –

violence affected by exposure to violent media• Group membership plays a role in violent

behaviour: social identity theory and intergroup conflict theory – violence is an important behaviour in group conflicts, intragroup relationships

2) Social interaction – violence

Tedeschi and Felson (1994) – violence is a form of social interaction – a means to achieve a social or material outcome• Works well with Social Identity Theory – violence as a

means for establishing group position or face saving• Further explanation of violence as an acceptable

means of achieving group goals. Children of parents with high levels of conflict in their relationships were more likely to consider aggression as an appropriate behaviour in some situations (Fite 2008)

Cohen et al (1996) - Culture of Honour• Culture where small insults are conditioned to be responded with violence as a

cultural obligation. Focus on southern USA – loose gun control laws, endorsement of violence in the name of protection.

• Comparison experiment between southern (41) and northern (42) US college students

• Participants performed questionnaires, during which half were bumped and insulted by a confederate. After which, emotional content of face tasks and story completion tasks were performed.

• Northerners insulted – reacted with reported amusement, no significant difference in negativity on faces but increased happiness.

• Southerners insulted – more likely to end scenario completions with violence or threat of violence

• When repeated - cortisol and testosterone levels were recorded in saliva of participants. Insulted southerners had higher levels of cortisol

• Analysis – Southerners have different scripts for dealing with surprise rudeness. Scripts and schemas play important roles in interpreting conflicts and evaluating solutions

• Reliability, validity, ethical strengths and limitations to this study?

3) Feminist Theory - violence

• Feminist Theory – domestic violence is a symptom of a male dominated society. Violence becomes a means to defend dominance in the home over distribution of resources. Existence of a culture of honour among males regarding dominance in the home that can reward violent behaviour and punish non-violent compromise.

Exposure to violence- Domestic violence

• Exposure levels are high:• 80% hear violence between parents with as

many witness violence between parents• 30-60% become victims of abuse in the same

family units.

Cahn (2006) - Short term effects of witnessing violence

• Increased anxiety and depression• Feelings of fear, anger, grief, shame, distrust, and

powerlessness• Increased risk of suicide• Increased risk taking, school truancy, early sexual

activity, substance abuse• Diminished school performance• Increased learning difficulties – eg. Dyslexia• Problems maintaining relationships

Cahn (2006) Long term effects

• Boys become potential abusers later on • Females will tolerate violent relationships• Continuing depression/low self-esteem for

males and females• Rosenbaum and O’Leary (1981) – it is typical

in domestic violence situations is that male perpetrators come from homes where they witnessed or were victims of violence

Issues with domestic violence studies

• Mostly correlational studies are used -these are difficult to prove cause-effect

• Much data comes from shelters – data is them excluded or supressed from those who chose to remain in home lives or biased by the shelter transition itself. (Edelson 2002)

Rhodes et al. (2002) • Aims – to discover what mental health problems

exist in those involved in intimate partner violence• Methods – convenience sample of 1122 men.

Questionnaire implemented at trauma centre of a public hospital. 37% reported IPV were then compared to the 63% who reported no IPV.

• Results – Depression, traumatic stress, suicidality, substance use and low overall health all common among the victims and perpetrators of IPV.

Battered Woman Syndrome

• Used to explain behaviour patterns of women in abusive relationships:– Develop appeasement behaviours toward their

abusers – Acquire passivity or a lack of attempt to avoid

punishment.– Can escalate to significant physical injury or death

– psychological condition cited in defense cases for murder of abusive spouses

Saunders (1986)

• 52 battered women completed lengthy surveys regarding conflict tactics, motivation to violence, and social desirability bias. Most common reason for violence was self-defense, incidents were pre-emptory, and of low-intensity violence.

• Origins of violent behaviour - Shows that violence begets violence and that attacks would escalate till deadly

Strategies for reducing violenceGroup therapy and the Duluth Model• Focus of psychological treatment for the perpetrator - CBT therapy

showing how males use behaviours to control families including multi-agency attention to domestic situations

• Robertson (1999) – three factors that complicate therapy for perpetrators of IPV– 1. Cultural acceptance of IPV– 2. The effectiveness of violence to achieve the goals of the perpetrator – positive

reinforcement– 3. Power and control tendencies inhibit voluntary treatment – submission to

therapist and reduction of power.• Group treatment allows for establishment of powerful group norms that

do not permit violence• Focus on anger management, CBT work on developing insight into cost-

benefits of violence

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&docid=jXFtMZ1IvIfAjM&tbnid=wpItAHAFqdg3TM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http://www.uic.edu/depts/owa/power_control-wheel.html&ei=QKdfU9OXFMTuyAGllYCoDA&bvm=bv.65397613,d.aWc&psig=AFQjCNHu-SmpVABQrx5cyo22k93AFtvM9g&ust=1398864053624132

Issues with group therapies and domestic violence

• Difficult to assess success of therapies – recidivism often goes underreported (Shepard 1992) 40% of men were convicted of IPV five years after therapy

• Group approaches can transmit methods of battery and methods of avoiding detection.

Criticisms of Duluth Model• Focus on males as perpetrators and females as victims.• For lack of focus on other contributing factors to IPV• Has only recently been adapted for specific cultures

and to be less gender biased

Primary prevention – school programs

• Efforts to control violence before it happens• Focus in school education programmes• Males - dealing with norms that enable IPV• Females – identifying situations where IPV can

occur• Remember Safeteen?

Preventative programmes• Brozo et al (2002) – students in novel studies about

masculinity and violence completed media exposure logs on violence after the Columbine School Shooting. Pre and post surveys on attitudes on violence showed a decrease in violence instigation and culture-of-honour responses

• Smithey and Straus (2004) – 67% of students are exposed to anti-violence programmes

• Difficult to assess the effectiveness of programmes, longest follow-up study on violence reduction was 16 months (Edelson 2000) which is not considered long enough to established sustained reduction.