Schrodinger’s Cat and the Study of Close Relationships: The Influence of Relationship Science Research on its Participants’ Relationships
by Josh Poore | April 10th, 2009In 1935 Erwin Schrodinger devised a clever thought experiment that speaks to the essence of quantum physics and, interestingly, the art of scientific examination. A simple version is this: put a live cat in a closed box with some kind of noxious agent that has a chance of being released and killing the cat. Wait a while and then ask, “is the cat alive or dead?” The answer is more complicated than most realize. While the box remains closed, the cat is both alive and dead. Both possibilities exist free from prying eyes. However, once the box is opened and the cat is observable, it is either alive or dead. The lesson we can learn from the sacrifice (or lack thereof) of this hypothetical cat is that observing an outcome can change that outcome. Moreover, it leaves scientists like me with an interesting question: do we change the outcomes of our subjects’ close relationships by observing them? If so, how are relationships affected by relationship science? The relevant research on this topic is interesting and optimistic for both relationship scientists and their participants.
According to Hughes and Surra (2000), involvement in relationship research can be beneficial for couples that take part in it. They asked participants involved in a longitudinal study of “dating” relationships to “describe how participating in the study affected [their] relationships” and, if applicable, whether participation contributed to a break-up (Hughes & Surra, 2000). These questions were asked in both open-ended (essay) and closed-ended (multiple-choice) formats. They found a large proportion of their participants (28%) reporting that their participation increased their “attention to relationship evaluation,” such that it “increased their awareness of goals for the relationships” and made “new discoveries about the relationship.” Also, participation had an effect on relationship activities; it increased “relationship communication,” “contributed to togetherness,” and “contributed to awareness of relationship activities.” Only 5% said that participation “brought up conflict.” Perhaps their most interesting findings are that 1) the “relationship-evaluating” influence participants experienced increased with their length of participation and 2) that this increase in relationship evaluation increased their relationship satisfaction as the study progressed, even when controlling for participants’ initial feelings of satisfaction.
It may be the case that people who actively participate in relationship science research are also the ones most likely to benefit from it. Certainly, it could be the case that the increased attention and awareness that such research seems to inspire might make some second guess their relationships. Depending on one’s perspective, this can be either good or bad. Ironically, this is what Schrodinger taught us. What we see in ourselves and others depends on how we observe them. Observation can be misleading as to the possibilities that actually exist, but if we didn’t lead an examined life, we’d never know what’s possible. For some, it appears as though participation in research helps them do just that.
Further Reading:
Hughes, D., & Surra, C. (2000). The Reported Influence of Research Participation on Premarital Relationships Journal of Marriage and Family, 62 (3), 822-832 DOI: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00822.x
Schrodinger, E. (1935). The present situation in quantum mechanics. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 124, 323-38.
Email This Post
| 
April 11th, 2009 at 4:22 am
Interesting article, and important point that observing of a process often becomes part of that process.
On hte other hand, I really think that the Schrodinger thing is bit hackneyed as an opener. Given the context in terms of his argument against the Copenhagen interpretation offered at the time, I really think Prof. Schrodinger was trying to show quite the opposite of the point you are making above, that it *doesn’t* make sense to think of quantum effects as happening directly to macroscopic objects.
I guess I’m trying to say that I think it’s a really bad example of a really good point.
Let the poor cat out of the box, he’s suffered enough at our hands over the years.
April 13th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
You are correct that Schrodinger did not originally intend for his “cat” metaphor to be used for “macroscopic” agents. However, the logic of his approach is also relevant to probability theory in as much as it informs us about the nature of probability for certain events with respect to the observation of such events. Regardless of the size or organization of matter–whether we’re talking about it at the subatomic level, or at the level of complex life-forms–there is a certain probability associated with a given organization of some set of matter. Returning to our cat in its box housing a noxious agent, it may be more likely that the cat is alive than dead at observation time X, however, it is possible that the cat is dead. Therefore, until the box is opened and the “outcome” is observed, we can only assume that both states exist as possibilities. In the end, the same matter occupies the box, regardless of that matter’s state or organization. Schrodinger’s contribution was to illustrate a reconciliation between the nature of quantum theory with the existing laws of thermodynamics–no matter when you observe the outcome, or what the observed outcome is, nothing has really changed, the same matter exists in the box.
I believe that Schrodinger’s cat is a particularly useful metaphor for the scientific method of observation. Scientists in the physical and behavioral sciences are less interested in matter, per se. As humans it is more important to understand the circumstances that give rise to specific states and organizations of matter. In this respect, our job is to estimate the likelihood that matter takes one shape or another, one state or another. Given this, it is extremely important that we keep in mind the quantum possibilities of matter’s organization regardless, which precisely why I think Schrodinger’s insights are important for physicists and psychologists alike.
Feel free to respond further, if you’d like. This is a very interesting debate.