A researcher investigated how adult siblings understood fairness when sharing responsibilities for an older relative. Having previously managed most of the care in their own family, the researcher expected that equal amounts of time would produce better sibling relationships. Notices inviting volunteers were displayed in community centres. Forty-six adults who shared some caring responsibilities with at least one sibling completed a questionnaire. Each participant answered independently; their siblings were not recruited as part of the same family group.

The questionnaire asked participants to estimate the hours they and their siblings had spent helping during the previous week. Participants rated how fairly responsibilities were shared and how satisfied they were with their sibling relationships. Open questions asked what a fair arrangement meant to them and invited an example of an arrangement that had worked well or badly. Participants were instructed not to name relatives and could skip any question.

Before collecting responses, the researcher wrote down their expectation that unequal hours would indicate unfairness. When organising the written answers, they initially placed accounts describing unequal hours under the heading “resentment”. A colleague who read copies of the answers without this heading challenged that decision. Several participants had described unequal hours as fair because siblings differed in income, health or distance from the relative. Some described financial contributions as more useful than additional visits.

The researcher reread all responses and revised the headings to include these explanations. They kept a record of the revisions and included contrasting accounts in the final report. The findings suggested that participants’ judgments of fairness did not always match the division of hours. The researcher concluded that unequal contributions could be compatible with satisfying sibling relationships, while noting that the questionnaire represented only one person’s account of each family arrangement.

Discuss this study with reference to two or more of the following concepts: perspective, bias, measurement, and/or responsibility.

Researchers investigated whether eating an evening meal together improved relationships between adults who lived with a romantic partner. They distributed invitations through employers operating different work schedules. Eighty-three adults volunteered to complete a questionnaire privately at home. Only one person from each couple participated. No participant was asked to change their usual routine, and all information was collected on one occasion.

Participants reported how many evenings they had eaten with their partner during the previous seven days. They then rated statements about feeling understood, enjoying their partner’s company and being satisfied with the relationship. An open question asked what usually made it easier or harder to spend time together. Questions about working hours and caring responsibilities were included at the end. Participants received the same instructions and could omit items without giving a reason.

The researchers reported that participants who ate together more frequently also described more satisfying relationships. Written answers suggested several possible explanations. Some respondents said that enjoyable meals created opportunities to talk. Others said that they chose to eat together because they already enjoyed one another’s company. Participants working irregular hours often described difficulty arranging shared meals even when they were satisfied with their relationship. Some respondents also reported that recent disagreements had reduced both their shared meals and their satisfaction.

The researchers did not separate the accounts according to work schedules, caring responsibilities or recent disagreements. They concluded that shared meals caused better relationships and recommended that employers encourage workers to eat with their partners every evening. The final report described the consistent instructions and private completion as reasons to trust the findings. It also acknowledged that volunteers might differ from adults who did not respond and that participants’ partners might describe the same relationship differently.

Discuss this study with reference to two or more of the following concepts: causality, measurement, bias, and/or perspective.

Researchers investigated how relationships between new employees and their assigned workplace mentors developed during the employees’ first six months. All 68 adults joining one organisation during a recruitment period were invited to complete questionnaires after their first month and again after six months. The invitation explained that participation was voluntary and would not affect employment. Fifty-eight employees completed the first questionnaire, and 35 of these completed the second.

Both questionnaires asked how comfortable employees felt admitting mistakes to their mentor, whether they felt listened to and whether they felt included in the work team. An open question invited an account of a helpful or difficult interaction. Participants used a code to link their two questionnaires. The researchers kept the list connecting codes and names separately from the responses and told participants that managers would receive only a summary.

After the first collection, several participants said they had worried that a distinctive incident might identify them. The researchers therefore removed the open question from the second questionnaire and reminded employees that they could skip any item. Some employees had also received a different mentor before the second collection. The researchers did not ask why mentors had changed because they considered this potentially sensitive.

Among employees who completed both questionnaires, later ratings generally described more comfortable and supportive relationships. Those who did not complete the second questionnaire had often expressed less comfort in their initial responses. The researchers reported that mentoring relationships improved over six months. They did not discuss whether non-response or mentor changes could help explain this finding. Although managers requested examples of difficult interactions to improve training, the researchers declined to share individual accounts and instead provided a broad summary that omitted distinctive details.

Discuss this study with reference to two or more of the following concepts: responsibility, change, measurement, and/or bias.