Despite the vast research on the social bias in decision-making, relatively little is known about biases in voting behaviour. The main aim of this research was to explore alternative indirect methods to observe biases in decision-making and voting behaviour. A proximity bias was first observed in the rather unusual setting of the Weakest Link TV game show, when contestants avoided casting negative votes against their closest neighbours. This proximity bias was most profound for the contestant closest to the voter. Two field experiments were designed to test whether this Neighbour Effect occurred in different social contexts, among the first-year undergraduate students. The first study asked first-year undergraduate students in a lecture (n=449) to vote for another person seated in the same row. The same Neighbour Effect occurred when the vote carried a nasty (negative) outcome for the recipient however, when the vote valence changed to a nice (positive) outcome the Neighbour Effect disappeared. In negative voting, the result of the field experiment confirmed the original observation in the Weakest Link. However, a reverse polarity voting pattern was also found in the positive voting. This suggests participants significantly favoured their closest neighbour(s). The second field experiment used Prisoner’s Dilemma with undergraduates in a lecture theatre (n= 229) to test the Neighbour Effect. The undergraduates played the game with another player seated in the same row and in the same block in a lecture theatre. The results showed a neighbour effect because the players were significantly more likely to cooperate with a neighbour that a non-neighbour. To conclude the findings from this study suggested that the Neighbour Effect is a robust bias in strategic decision-making and voting.

This study aimed to explore the influence of adult attachment on relationship quality in parents of children with ADHD. A mixed methods design was used to address the research objectives. Study One (quantitative) explored the different pressures that having a child with ADHD places on parents with different attachment styles, and how the parents differ in their way of responding to such pressures based on their attachment styles. Two hundred and fifty four participants were employed: 101 parents of children with ADHD, and 153 parents of children without ADHD. Four established questionnaires were used: Connors Parental rating Scale (CPRS), Communication Pattern Questionnaire (CPQ), Experience in Close Relationship (ECR), and Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS). The results showed that parents of children with ADHD reported greater marital conflict and worse dyadic adjustment than parents of children without ADHD. Moreover, behavioural problems in children with ADHD correlated negatively with interpersonal relationship in the parental couple. Finally, attachment style moderated the impact of ADHD symptoms on interpersonal problems in the couple. On the other hand, Study Two (qualitative) explored parents’ experiences of how the disorganised behaviour of children with ADHD or the normal naughtiness of children without ADHD had an impact on the relationship. The differences between parents with children with and without ADHD with regard to their attachment styles were also studied. Forty eight participants extracted from the Study One were participated in this Study Two. The results through the thematic analyses indicated that parents of children with ADHD experienced the stress related to their children’s condition which was negatively affected their couple relationship. Not only that, the parents with different attachment styles experienced differently in both group. In considering both studies, the qualitative themes may explain how attachment insecurity moderates the impact of having a child with ADHD on relationship variables. The theme may be particularly important, as it may have a negative influence on the interpersonal communication of the parents with insecurity attachment. It is proposed that this research can make a contribution towards relevant intervention programs to facilitate support for parents of children with ADHD.

This is a systemic practice doctorate where research is undertaken through a social and relational constructionist lens (McNamee and Hosking, 2012) under a broader umbrella of systemic qualitative research practice. A philosophical orientation to inquiry is taken, offering a way of exploring encounters, and specifically conversations in practice, in an embodied relational and dialogical way from within the experience. This locates me as an active participant alongside other active participants, and self- and relational reflexivity feature centrally within a systemic approach to practice and inquiry. The specific inquiry focus is on embodied, reflexive processes as I engage with others in everyday conversations on issues that matter to different professional and non-professional individuals and community groups; it is a complex ecology. Systemic, embodied, relational concepts are explored through a lens that sees inquiry as philosophically informed. This acknowledges the professional, personal and multiple contexts that inform both the doing and being in each conversation within practice and inquiry. The multi-versa of individuals and groups, professional and non-professional are examined through attention to moments of conversation portrayed through vignettes and dialogical excerpts. I try to capture a sense of the living dynamic of each of the interactions through attention to my multi-vocal inner dialogue and the multiplicity of felt experiences within these conversations where I am moved, stirred, unsettled and fully embodied: I become the case study in the ebbs and flows of this experience. How I inform these processes, and how I am informed by the responses of others, comes under close scrutiny. Attention is given to reciprocal responses, my internal dialogue, as I respond to what has gone before, external moves within these relational unfolding conversational encounters, how the conversation is experienced by those involved, and how we move on together. This inquiry focuses on embodied relational processes within the multiple complex dynamic of these conversations, unpacking our ways of ‘going on’ together (Wittgenstein, 1953). Autoethnography (Finlay, 2002; Ellis, 2004; Etherington, 2004), self- and relational reflexivity (1992), Coordinated Management of Meaning (CMM) (Pearce, 1994), and the process of writing itself are some of the concepts employed to enter this complexity. The unique additional inquiry tool introduced, alongside these, is the personal metaphor of rock climbing. This is chosen because of the fit I consider it has within a conceptual frame of relational embodiment, emphasising the ‘I’, a systemic practitioner and climber, as an embodied being with other embodied beings in conversation. I enter this process of inquiry with openness to enable change and to be changed, and I hope to challenge some established ideas about research. I consider the extent to which the metaphor illuminates embodied, self- and relationally reflexive processes in the context of systemic inquiry. The usefulness and application of this metaphor is tested as an embodied reflexive tool. I explore whether ways of thinking about and understanding embodied relational and dynamic processes can be extended. New features that come to light in the process of this inquiry are explored and the insights that may emerge, along with possible contributions to systemic inquiry and practice, are considered. The wider use of metaphors emerging through the dialogue that people offer to describe experience and to capture a sense of lived moments opens further potential for new learning. The reflexive scope and use of metaphor generally is discussed at the end, along with personal and professional learning from the process of writing and inquiry. I propose a new lens to reflexive inquiry that is suited to systemic practice, embodied reflexive inquiry in which I draw attention to embodied reflexive detailed features within interactions between people. This has wide-ranging applications in systemic and other contexts, including community settings, systemic therapy, training and supervision and across different professional networks, and is explored here. My hope is that this inquiry will to add to the growing field of systemic inquiry texts.