social behaviour experiments

Social Psychology Experiments: 10 Of The Most Famous Studies

Ten of the most influential social psychology experiments explain why we sometimes do dumb or irrational things. 

Ten of the most influential social psychology experiments explain why we sometimes do dumb or irrational things.

“I have been primarily interested in how and why ordinary people do unusual things, things that seem alien to their natures. Why do good people sometimes act evil? Why do smart people sometimes do dumb or irrational things?” –Philip Zimbardo

Like famous social psychologist Professor Philip Zimbardo (author of The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil ), I’m also obsessed with why we do dumb or irrational things.

The answer quite often is because of other people — something social psychologists have comprehensively shown.

Each of the 10 brilliant social psychology experiments below tells a unique, insightful story relevant to all our lives, every day.

Click the link in each social psychology experiment to get the full description and explanation of each phenomenon.

1. Social Psychology Experiments: The Halo Effect

The halo effect is a finding from a famous social psychology experiment.

It is the idea that global evaluations about a person (e.g. she is likeable) bleed over into judgements about their specific traits (e.g. she is intelligent).

It is sometimes called the “what is beautiful is good” principle, or the “physical attractiveness stereotype”.

It is called the halo effect because a halo was often used in religious art to show that a person is good.

2. Cognitive Dissonance

Cognitive dissonance is the mental discomfort people feel when trying to hold two conflicting beliefs in their mind.

People resolve this discomfort by changing their thoughts to align with one of conflicting beliefs and rejecting the other.

The study provides a central insight into the stories we tell ourselves about why we think and behave the way we do.

3. Robbers Cave Experiment: How Group Conflicts Develop

The Robbers Cave experiment was a famous social psychology experiment on how prejudice and conflict emerged between two group of boys.

It shows how groups naturally develop their own cultures, status structures and boundaries — and then come into conflict with each other.

For example, each country has its own culture, its government, legal system and it draws boundaries to differentiate itself from neighbouring countries.

One of the reasons the became so famous is that it appeared to show how groups could be reconciled, how peace could flourish.

The key was the focus on superordinate goals, those stretching beyond the boundaries of the group itself.

4. Social Psychology Experiments: The Stanford Prison Experiment

The Stanford prison experiment was run to find out how people would react to being made a prisoner or prison guard.

The psychologist Philip Zimbardo, who led the Stanford prison experiment, thought ordinary, healthy people would come to behave cruelly, like prison guards, if they were put in that situation, even if it was against their personality.

It has since become a classic social psychology experiment, studied by generations of students and recently coming under a lot of criticism.

5. The Milgram Social Psychology Experiment

The Milgram experiment , led by the well-known psychologist Stanley Milgram in the 1960s, aimed to test people’s obedience to authority.

The results of Milgram’s social psychology experiment, sometimes known as the Milgram obedience study, continue to be both thought-provoking and controversial.

The Milgram experiment discovered people are much more obedient than you might imagine.

Fully 63 percent of the participants continued administering what appeared like electric shocks to another person while they screamed in agony, begged to stop and eventually fell silent — just because they were told to.

6. The False Consensus Effect

The false consensus effect is a famous social psychological finding that people tend to assume that others agree with them.

It could apply to opinions, values, beliefs or behaviours, but people assume others think and act in the same way as they do.

It is hard for many people to believe the false consensus effect exists because they quite naturally believe they are good ‘intuitive psychologists’, thinking it is relatively easy to predict other people’s attitudes and behaviours.

In reality, people show a number of predictable biases, such as the false consensus effect, when estimating other people’s behaviour and its causes.

7. Social Psychology Experiments: Social Identity Theory

Social identity theory helps to explain why people’s behaviour in groups is fascinating and sometimes disturbing.

People gain part of their self from the groups they belong to and that is at the heart of social identity theory.

The famous theory explains why as soon as humans are bunched together in groups we start to do odd things: copy other members of our group, favour members of own group over others, look for a leader to worship and fight other groups.

8. Negotiation: 2 Psychological Strategies That Matter Most

Negotiation is one of those activities we often engage in without quite realising it.

Negotiation doesn’t just happen in the boardroom, or when we ask our boss for a raise or down at the market, it happens every time we want to reach an agreement with someone.

In a classic, award-winning series of social psychology experiments, Morgan Deutsch and Robert Krauss investigated two central factors in negotiation: how we communicate with each other and how we use threats.

9. Bystander Effect And The Diffusion Of Responsibility

The bystander effect in social psychology is the surprising finding that the mere presence of other people inhibits our own helping behaviours in an emergency.

The bystander effect social psychology experiments are mentioned in every psychology textbook and often dubbed ‘seminal’.

This famous social psychology experiment on the bystander effect was inspired by the highly publicised murder of Kitty Genovese in 1964.

It found that in some circumstances, the presence of others inhibits people’s helping behaviours — partly because of a phenomenon called diffusion of responsibility.

10. Asch Conformity Experiment: The Power Of Social Pressure

The Asch conformity experiments — some of the most famous every done — were a series of social psychology experiments carried out by noted psychologist Solomon Asch.

The Asch conformity experiment reveals how strongly a person’s opinions are affected by people around them.

In fact, the Asch conformity experiment shows that many of us will deny our own senses just to conform with others.

Author: Dr Jeremy Dean

Psychologist, Jeremy Dean, PhD is the founder and author of PsyBlog. He holds a doctorate in psychology from University College London and two other advanced degrees in psychology. He has been writing about scientific research on PsyBlog since 2004. View all posts by Dr Jeremy Dean

Join the free PsyBlog mailing list. No spam, ever.

• The 25 Most Influential Psychological Experiments in History

While each year thousands and thousands of studies are completed in the many specialty areas of psychology, there are a handful that, over the years, have had a lasting impact in the psychological community as a whole. Some of these were dutifully conducted, keeping within the confines of ethical and practical guidelines. Others pushed the boundaries of human behavior during their psychological experiments and created controversies that still linger to this day. And still others were not designed to be true psychological experiments, but ended up as beacons to the psychological community in proving or disproving theories.

This is a list of the 25 most influential psychological experiments still being taught to psychology students of today.

1. A Class Divided

Study conducted by: jane elliott.

Study Conducted in 1968 in an Iowa classroom

Experiment Details: Jane Elliott’s famous experiment was inspired by the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and the inspirational life that he led. The third grade teacher developed an exercise, or better yet, a psychological experiment, to help her Caucasian students understand the effects of racism and prejudice.

Elliott divided her class into two separate groups: blue-eyed students and brown-eyed students. On the first day, she labeled the blue-eyed group as the superior group and from that point forward they had extra privileges, leaving the brown-eyed children to represent the minority group. She discouraged the groups from interacting and singled out individual students to stress the negative characteristics of the children in the minority group. What this exercise showed was that the children’s behavior changed almost instantaneously. The group of blue-eyed students performed better academically and even began bullying their brown-eyed classmates. The brown-eyed group experienced lower self-confidence and worse academic performance. The next day, she reversed the roles of the two groups and the blue-eyed students became the minority group.

At the end of the experiment, the children were so relieved that they were reported to have embraced one another and agreed that people should not be judged based on outward appearances. This exercise has since been repeated many times with similar outcomes.

For more information click here

2. Asch Conformity Study

Study conducted by: dr. solomon asch.

Study Conducted in 1951 at Swarthmore College

Experiment Details: Dr. Solomon Asch conducted a groundbreaking study that was designed to evaluate a person’s likelihood to conform to a standard when there is pressure to do so.

A group of participants were shown pictures with lines of various lengths and were then asked a simple question: Which line is longest? The tricky part of this study was that in each group only one person was a true participant. The others were actors with a script. Most of the actors were instructed to give the wrong answer. Strangely, the one true participant almost always agreed with the majority, even though they knew they were giving the wrong answer.

The results of this study are important when we study social interactions among individuals in groups. This study is a famous example of the temptation many of us experience to conform to a standard during group situations and it showed that people often care more about being the same as others than they do about being right. It is still recognized as one of the most influential psychological experiments for understanding human behavior.

3. Bobo Doll Experiment

Study conducted by: dr. alburt bandura.

Study Conducted between 1961-1963 at Stanford University

In his groundbreaking study he separated participants into three groups:

• one was exposed to a video of an adult showing aggressive behavior towards a Bobo doll
• another was exposed to video of a passive adult playing with the Bobo doll
• the third formed a control group

Children watched their assigned video and then were sent to a room with the same doll they had seen in the video (with the exception of those in the control group). What the researcher found was that children exposed to the aggressive model were more likely to exhibit aggressive behavior towards the doll themselves. The other groups showed little imitative aggressive behavior. For those children exposed to the aggressive model, the number of derivative physical aggressions shown by the boys was 38.2 and 12.7 for the girls.

The study also showed that boys exhibited more aggression when exposed to aggressive male models than boys exposed to aggressive female models. When exposed to aggressive male models, the number of aggressive instances exhibited by boys averaged 104. This is compared to 48.4 aggressive instances exhibited by boys who were exposed to aggressive female models.

While the results for the girls show similar findings, the results were less drastic. When exposed to aggressive female models, the number of aggressive instances exhibited by girls averaged 57.7. This is compared to 36.3 aggressive instances exhibited by girls who were exposed to aggressive male models. The results concerning gender differences strongly supported Bandura’s secondary prediction that children will be more strongly influenced by same-sex models. The Bobo Doll Experiment showed a groundbreaking way to study human behavior and it’s influences.

4. Car Crash Experiment

Study conducted by: elizabeth loftus and john palmer.

Study Conducted in 1974 at The University of California in Irvine

The participants watched slides of a car accident and were asked to describe what had happened as if they were eyewitnesses to the scene. The participants were put into two groups and each group was questioned using different wording such as “how fast was the car driving at the time of impact?” versus “how fast was the car going when it smashed into the other car?” The experimenters found that the use of different verbs affected the participants’ memories of the accident, showing that memory can be easily distorted.

This research suggests that memory can be easily manipulated by questioning technique. This means that information gathered after the event can merge with original memory causing incorrect recall or reconstructive memory. The addition of false details to a memory of an event is now referred to as confabulation. This concept has very important implications for the questions used in police interviews of eyewitnesses.

5. Cognitive Dissonance Experiment

Study conducted by: leon festinger and james carlsmith.

Study Conducted in 1957 at Stanford University

Experiment Details: The concept of cognitive dissonance refers to a situation involving conflicting:

This conflict produces an inherent feeling of discomfort leading to a change in one of the attitudes, beliefs or behaviors to minimize or eliminate the discomfort and restore balance.

Cognitive dissonance was first investigated by Leon Festinger, after an observational study of a cult that believed that the earth was going to be destroyed by a flood. Out of this study was born an intriguing experiment conducted by Festinger and Carlsmith where participants were asked to perform a series of dull tasks (such as turning pegs in a peg board for an hour). Participant’s initial attitudes toward this task were highly negative.

They were then paid either $1 or $20 to tell a participant waiting in the lobby that the tasks were really interesting. Almost all of the participants agreed to walk into the waiting room and persuade the next participant that the boring experiment would be fun. When the participants were later asked to evaluate the experiment, the participants who were paid only $1 rated the tedious task as more fun and enjoyable than the participants who were paid $20 to lie.

Being paid only $1 is not sufficient incentive for lying and so those who were paid $1 experienced dissonance. They could only overcome that cognitive dissonance by coming to believe that the tasks really were interesting and enjoyable. Being paid $20 provides a reason for turning pegs and there is therefore no dissonance.

6. Fantz’s Looking Chamber

Study conducted by: robert l. fantz.

Study Conducted in 1961 at the University of Illinois

Experiment Details: The study conducted by Robert L. Fantz is among the simplest, yet most important in the field of infant development and vision. In 1961, when this experiment was conducted, there very few ways to study what was going on in the mind of an infant. Fantz realized that the best way was to simply watch the actions and reactions of infants. He understood the fundamental factor that if there is something of interest near humans, they generally look at it.

To test this concept, Fantz set up a display board with two pictures attached. On one was a bulls-eye. On the other was the sketch of a human face. This board was hung in a chamber where a baby could lie safely underneath and see both images. Then, from behind the board, invisible to the baby, he peeked through a hole to watch what the baby looked at. This study showed that a two-month old baby looked twice as much at the human face as it did at the bulls-eye. This suggests that human babies have some powers of pattern and form selection. Before this experiment it was thought that babies looked out onto a chaotic world of which they could make little sense.

7. Hawthorne Effect

Study conducted by: henry a. landsberger.

Study Conducted in 1955 at Hawthorne Works in Chicago, Illinois

Landsberger performed the study by analyzing data from experiments conducted between 1924 and 1932, by Elton Mayo, at the Hawthorne Works near Chicago. The company had commissioned studies to evaluate whether the level of light in a building changed the productivity of the workers. What Mayo found was that the level of light made no difference in productivity. The workers increased their output whenever the amount of light was switched from a low level to a high level, or vice versa.

The researchers noticed a tendency that the workers’ level of efficiency increased when any variable was manipulated. The study showed that the output changed simply because the workers were aware that they were under observation. The conclusion was that the workers felt important because they were pleased to be singled out. They increased productivity as a result. Being singled out was the factor dictating increased productivity, not the changing lighting levels, or any of the other factors that they experimented upon.

The Hawthorne Effect has become one of the hardest inbuilt biases to eliminate or factor into the design of any experiment in psychology and beyond.

8. Kitty Genovese Case

Study conducted by: new york police force.

Study Conducted in 1964 in New York City

Experiment Details: The murder case of Kitty Genovese was never intended to be a psychological experiment, however it ended up having serious implications for the field.

According to a New York Times article, almost 40 neighbors witnessed Kitty Genovese being savagely attacked and murdered in Queens, New York in 1964. Not one neighbor called the police for help. Some reports state that the attacker briefly left the scene and later returned to “finish off” his victim. It was later uncovered that many of these facts were exaggerated. (There were more likely only a dozen witnesses and records show that some calls to police were made).

What this case later become famous for is the “Bystander Effect,” which states that the more bystanders that are present in a social situation, the less likely it is that anyone will step in and help. This effect has led to changes in medicine, psychology and many other areas. One famous example is the way CPR is taught to new learners. All students in CPR courses learn that they must assign one bystander the job of alerting authorities which minimizes the chances of no one calling for assistance.

9. Learned Helplessness Experiment

Study conducted by: martin seligman.

Study Conducted in 1967 at the University of Pennsylvania

Seligman’s experiment involved the ringing of a bell and then the administration of a light shock to a dog. After a number of pairings, the dog reacted to the shock even before it happened. As soon as the dog heard the bell, he reacted as though he’d already been shocked.

During the course of this study something unexpected happened. Each dog was placed in a large crate that was divided down the middle with a low fence. The dog could see and jump over the fence easily. The floor on one side of the fence was electrified, but not on the other side of the fence. Seligman placed each dog on the electrified side and administered a light shock. He expected the dog to jump to the non-shocking side of the fence. In an unexpected turn, the dogs simply laid down.

The hypothesis was that as the dogs learned from the first part of the experiment that there was nothing they could do to avoid the shocks, they gave up in the second part of the experiment. To prove this hypothesis the experimenters brought in a new set of animals and found that dogs with no history in the experiment would jump over the fence.

This condition was described as learned helplessness. A human or animal does not attempt to get out of a negative situation because the past has taught them that they are helpless.

10. Little Albert Experiment

Study conducted by: john b. watson and rosalie rayner.

Study Conducted in 1920 at Johns Hopkins University

The experiment began by placing a white rat in front of the infant, who initially had no fear of the animal. Watson then produced a loud sound by striking a steel bar with a hammer every time little Albert was presented with the rat. After several pairings (the noise and the presentation of the white rat), the boy began to cry and exhibit signs of fear every time the rat appeared in the room. Watson also created similar conditioned reflexes with other common animals and objects (rabbits, Santa beard, etc.) until Albert feared them all.

This study proved that classical conditioning works on humans. One of its most important implications is that adult fears are often connected to early childhood experiences.

11. Magical Number Seven

Study conducted by: george a. miller.

Study Conducted in 1956 at Princeton University

Experiment Details:   Frequently referred to as “ Miller’s Law,” the Magical Number Seven experiment purports that the number of objects an average human can hold in working memory is 7 ± 2. This means that the human memory capacity typically includes strings of words or concepts ranging from 5-9. This information on the limits to the capacity for processing information became one of the most highly cited papers in psychology.

The Magical Number Seven Experiment was published in 1956 by cognitive psychologist George A. Miller of Princeton University’s Department of Psychology in Psychological Review .  In the article, Miller discussed a concurrence between the limits of one-dimensional absolute judgment and the limits of short-term memory.

In a one-dimensional absolute-judgment task, a person is presented with a number of stimuli that vary on one dimension (such as 10 different tones varying only in pitch). The person responds to each stimulus with a corresponding response (learned before).

Performance is almost perfect up to five or six different stimuli but declines as the number of different stimuli is increased. This means that a human’s maximum performance on one-dimensional absolute judgment can be described as an information store with the maximum capacity of approximately 2 to 3 bits of information There is the ability to distinguish between four and eight alternatives.

12. Pavlov’s Dog Experiment

Study conducted by: ivan pavlov.

Study Conducted in the 1890s at the Military Medical Academy in St. Petersburg, Russia

Pavlov began with the simple idea that there are some things that a dog does not need to learn. He observed that dogs do not learn to salivate when they see food. This reflex is “hard wired” into the dog. This is an unconditioned response (a stimulus-response connection that required no learning).

Pavlov outlined that there are unconditioned responses in the animal by presenting a dog with a bowl of food and then measuring its salivary secretions. In the experiment, Pavlov used a bell as his neutral stimulus. Whenever he gave food to his dogs, he also rang a bell. After a number of repeats of this procedure, he tried the bell on its own. What he found was that the bell on its own now caused an increase in salivation. The dog had learned to associate the bell and the food. This learning created a new behavior. The dog salivated when he heard the bell. Because this response was learned (or conditioned), it is called a conditioned response. The neutral stimulus has become a conditioned stimulus.

This theory came to be known as classical conditioning.

13. Robbers Cave Experiment

Study conducted by: muzafer and carolyn sherif.

Study Conducted in 1954 at the University of Oklahoma

Experiment Details: This experiment, which studied group conflict, is considered by most to be outside the lines of what is considered ethically sound.

In 1954 researchers at the University of Oklahoma assigned 22 eleven- and twelve-year-old boys from similar backgrounds into two groups. The two groups were taken to separate areas of a summer camp facility where they were able to bond as social units. The groups were housed in separate cabins and neither group knew of the other’s existence for an entire week. The boys bonded with their cabin mates during that time. Once the two groups were allowed to have contact, they showed definite signs of prejudice and hostility toward each other even though they had only been given a very short time to develop their social group. To increase the conflict between the groups, the experimenters had them compete against each other in a series of activities. This created even more hostility and eventually the groups refused to eat in the same room. The final phase of the experiment involved turning the rival groups into friends. The fun activities the experimenters had planned like shooting firecrackers and watching movies did not initially work, so they created teamwork exercises where the two groups were forced to collaborate. At the end of the experiment, the boys decided to ride the same bus home, demonstrating that conflict can be resolved and prejudice overcome through cooperation.

Many critics have compared this study to Golding’s Lord of the Flies novel as a classic example of prejudice and conflict resolution.

14. Ross’ False Consensus Effect Study

Study conducted by: lee ross.

Study Conducted in 1977 at Stanford University

Experiment Details: In 1977, a social psychology professor at Stanford University named Lee Ross conducted an experiment that, in lay terms, focuses on how people can incorrectly conclude that others think the same way they do, or form a “false consensus” about the beliefs and preferences of others. Ross conducted the study in order to outline how the “false consensus effect” functions in humans.

Featured Programs

In the first part of the study, participants were asked to read about situations in which a conflict occurred and then were told two alternative ways of responding to the situation. They were asked to do three things:

• Guess which option other people would choose
• Say which option they themselves would choose
• Describe the attributes of the person who would likely choose each of the two options

What the study showed was that most of the subjects believed that other people would do the same as them, regardless of which of the two responses they actually chose themselves. This phenomenon is referred to as the false consensus effect, where an individual thinks that other people think the same way they do when they may not. The second observation coming from this important study is that when participants were asked to describe the attributes of the people who will likely make the choice opposite of their own, they made bold and sometimes negative predictions about the personalities of those who did not share their choice.

15. The Schachter and Singer Experiment on Emotion

Study conducted by: stanley schachter and jerome e. singer.

Study Conducted in 1962 at Columbia University

Experiment Details: In 1962 Schachter and Singer conducted a ground breaking experiment to prove their theory of emotion.

In the study, a group of 184 male participants were injected with epinephrine, a hormone that induces arousal including increased heartbeat, trembling, and rapid breathing. The research participants were told that they were being injected with a new medication to test their eyesight. The first group of participants was informed the possible side effects that the injection might cause while the second group of participants were not. The participants were then placed in a room with someone they thought was another participant, but was actually a confederate in the experiment. The confederate acted in one of two ways: euphoric or angry. Participants who had not been informed about the effects of the injection were more likely to feel either happier or angrier than those who had been informed.

What Schachter and Singer were trying to understand was the ways in which cognition or thoughts influence human emotion. Their study illustrates the importance of how people interpret their physiological states, which form an important component of your emotions. Though their cognitive theory of emotional arousal dominated the field for two decades, it has been criticized for two main reasons: the size of the effect seen in the experiment was not that significant and other researchers had difficulties repeating the experiment.

16. Selective Attention / Invisible Gorilla Experiment

Study conducted by: daniel simons and christopher chabris.

Study Conducted in 1999 at Harvard University

Experiment Details: In 1999 Simons and Chabris conducted their famous awareness test at Harvard University.

Participants in the study were asked to watch a video and count how many passes occurred between basketball players on the white team. The video moves at a moderate pace and keeping track of the passes is a relatively easy task. What most people fail to notice amidst their counting is that in the middle of the test, a man in a gorilla suit walked onto the court and stood in the center before walking off-screen.

The study found that the majority of the subjects did not notice the gorilla at all, proving that humans often overestimate their ability to effectively multi-task. What the study set out to prove is that when people are asked to attend to one task, they focus so strongly on that element that they may miss other important details.

17. Stanford Prison Study

Study conducted by philip zimbardo.

Study Conducted in 1971 at Stanford University

The Stanford Prison Experiment was designed to study behavior of “normal” individuals when assigned a role of prisoner or guard. College students were recruited to participate. They were assigned roles of “guard” or “inmate.”  Zimbardo played the role of the warden. The basement of the psychology building was the set of the prison. Great care was taken to make it look and feel as realistic as possible.

The prison guards were told to run a prison for two weeks. They were told not to physically harm any of the inmates during the study. After a few days, the prison guards became very abusive verbally towards the inmates. Many of the prisoners became submissive to those in authority roles. The Stanford Prison Experiment inevitably had to be cancelled because some of the participants displayed troubling signs of breaking down mentally.

Although the experiment was conducted very unethically, many psychologists believe that the findings showed how much human behavior is situational. People will conform to certain roles if the conditions are right. The Stanford Prison Experiment remains one of the most famous psychology experiments of all time.

18. Stanley Milgram Experiment

Study conducted by stanley milgram.

Study Conducted in 1961 at Stanford University

Experiment Details: This 1961 study was conducted by Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram. It was designed to measure people’s willingness to obey authority figures when instructed to perform acts that conflicted with their morals. The study was based on the premise that humans will inherently take direction from authority figures from very early in life.

Participants were told they were participating in a study on memory. They were asked to watch another person (an actor) do a memory test. They were instructed to press a button that gave an electric shock each time the person got a wrong answer. (The actor did not actually receive the shocks, but pretended they did).

Participants were told to play the role of “teacher” and administer electric shocks to “the learner,” every time they answered a question incorrectly. The experimenters asked the participants to keep increasing the shocks. Most of them obeyed even though the individual completing the memory test appeared to be in great pain. Despite these protests, many participants continued the experiment when the authority figure urged them to. They increased the voltage after each wrong answer until some eventually administered what would be lethal electric shocks.

This experiment showed that humans are conditioned to obey authority and will usually do so even if it goes against their natural morals or common sense.

19. Surrogate Mother Experiment

Study conducted by: harry harlow.

Study Conducted from 1957-1963 at the University of Wisconsin

Experiment Details: In a series of controversial experiments during the late 1950s and early 1960s, Harry Harlow studied the importance of a mother’s love for healthy childhood development.

In order to do this he separated infant rhesus monkeys from their mothers a few hours after birth and left them to be raised by two “surrogate mothers.” One of the surrogates was made of wire with an attached bottle for food. The other was made of soft terrycloth but lacked food. The researcher found that the baby monkeys spent much more time with the cloth mother than the wire mother, thereby proving that affection plays a greater role than sustenance when it comes to childhood development. They also found that the monkeys that spent more time cuddling the soft mother grew up to healthier.

This experiment showed that love, as demonstrated by physical body contact, is a more important aspect of the parent-child bond than the provision of basic needs. These findings also had implications in the attachment between fathers and their infants when the mother is the source of nourishment.

20. The Good Samaritan Experiment

Study conducted by: john darley and daniel batson.

Study Conducted in 1973 at The Princeton Theological Seminary (Researchers were from Princeton University)

Experiment Details: In 1973, an experiment was created by John Darley and Daniel Batson, to investigate the potential causes that underlie altruistic behavior. The researchers set out three hypotheses they wanted to test:

• People thinking about religion and higher principles would be no more inclined to show helping behavior than laymen.
• People in a rush would be much less likely to show helping behavior.
• People who are religious for personal gain would be less likely to help than people who are religious because they want to gain some spiritual and personal insights into the meaning of life.

Student participants were given some religious teaching and instruction. They were then were told to travel from one building to the next. Between the two buildings was a man lying injured and appearing to be in dire need of assistance. The first variable being tested was the degree of urgency impressed upon the subjects, with some being told not to rush and others being informed that speed was of the essence.

The results of the experiment were intriguing, with the haste of the subject proving to be the overriding factor. When the subject was in no hurry, nearly two-thirds of people stopped to lend assistance. When the subject was in a rush, this dropped to one in ten.

People who were on the way to deliver a speech about helping others were nearly twice as likely to help as those delivering other sermons,. This showed that the thoughts of the individual were a factor in determining helping behavior. Religious beliefs did not appear to make much difference on the results. Being religious for personal gain, or as part of a spiritual quest, did not appear to make much of an impact on the amount of helping behavior shown.

21. The Halo Effect Experiment

Study conducted by: richard e. nisbett and timothy decamp wilson.

Study Conducted in 1977 at the University of Michigan

Experiment Details: The Halo Effect states that people generally assume that people who are physically attractive are more likely to:

• be intelligent
• be friendly
• display good judgment

To prove their theory, Nisbett and DeCamp Wilson created a study to prove that people have little awareness of the nature of the Halo Effect. They’re not aware that it influences:

• their personal judgments
• the production of a more complex social behavior

In the experiment, college students were the research participants. They were asked to evaluate a psychology instructor as they view him in a videotaped interview. The students were randomly assigned to one of two groups. Each group was shown one of two different interviews with the same instructor. The instructor is a native French-speaking Belgian who spoke English with a noticeable accent. In the first video, the instructor presented himself as someone:

• respectful of his students’ intelligence and motives
• flexible in his approach to teaching
• enthusiastic about his subject matter

In the second interview, he presented himself as much more unlikable. He was cold and distrustful toward the students and was quite rigid in his teaching style.

After watching the videos, the subjects were asked to rate the lecturer on:

• physical appearance

His mannerisms and accent were kept the same in both versions of videos. The subjects were asked to rate the professor on an 8-point scale ranging from “like extremely” to “dislike extremely.” Subjects were also told that the researchers were interested in knowing “how much their liking for the teacher influenced the ratings they just made.” Other subjects were asked to identify how much the characteristics they just rated influenced their liking of the teacher.

After responding to the questionnaire, the respondents were puzzled about their reactions to the videotapes and to the questionnaire items. The students had no idea why they gave one lecturer higher ratings. Most said that how much they liked the lecturer had not affected their evaluation of his individual characteristics at all.

The interesting thing about this study is that people can understand the phenomenon, but they are unaware when it is occurring. Without realizing it, humans make judgments. Even when it is pointed out, they may still deny that it is a product of the halo effect phenomenon.

22. The Marshmallow Test

Study conducted by: walter mischel.

Study Conducted in 1972 at Stanford University

In his 1972 Marshmallow Experiment, children ages four to six were taken into a room where a marshmallow was placed in front of them on a table. Before leaving each of the children alone in the room, the experimenter informed them that they would receive a second marshmallow if the first one was still on the table after they returned in 15 minutes. The examiner recorded how long each child resisted eating the marshmallow and noted whether it correlated with the child’s success in adulthood. A small number of the 600 children ate the marshmallow immediately and one-third delayed gratification long enough to receive the second marshmallow.

In follow-up studies, Mischel found that those who deferred gratification were significantly more competent and received higher SAT scores than their peers. This characteristic likely remains with a person for life. While this study seems simplistic, the findings outline some of the foundational differences in individual traits that can predict success.

23. The Monster Study

Study conducted by: wendell johnson.

Study Conducted in 1939 at the University of Iowa

Experiment Details: The Monster Study received this negative title due to the unethical methods that were used to determine the effects of positive and negative speech therapy on children.

Wendell Johnson of the University of Iowa selected 22 orphaned children, some with stutters and some without. The children were in two groups. The group of children with stutters was placed in positive speech therapy, where they were praised for their fluency. The non-stutterers were placed in negative speech therapy, where they were disparaged for every mistake in grammar that they made.

As a result of the experiment, some of the children who received negative speech therapy suffered psychological effects and retained speech problems for the rest of their lives. They were examples of the significance of positive reinforcement in education.

The initial goal of the study was to investigate positive and negative speech therapy. However, the implication spanned much further into methods of teaching for young children.

24. Violinist at the Metro Experiment

Study conducted by: staff at the washington post.

Study Conducted in 2007 at a Washington D.C. Metro Train Station

During the study, pedestrians rushed by without realizing that the musician playing at the entrance to the metro stop was Grammy-winning musician, Joshua Bell. Two days before playing in the subway, he sold out at a theater in Boston where the seats average $100. He played one of the most intricate pieces ever written with a violin worth 3.5 million dollars. In the 45 minutes the musician played his violin, only 6 people stopped and stayed for a while. Around 20 gave him money, but continued to walk their normal pace. He collected $32.

The study and the subsequent article organized by the Washington Post was part of a social experiment looking at:

• the priorities of people

Gene Weingarten wrote about the social experiment: “In a banal setting at an inconvenient time, would beauty transcend?” Later he won a Pulitzer Prize for his story. Some of the questions the article addresses are:

• Do we perceive beauty?
• Do we stop to appreciate it?
• Do we recognize the talent in an unexpected context?

As it turns out, many of us are not nearly as perceptive to our environment as we might like to think.

25. Visual Cliff Experiment

Study conducted by: eleanor gibson and richard walk.

Study Conducted in 1959 at Cornell University

Experiment Details: In 1959, psychologists Eleanor Gibson and Richard Walk set out to study depth perception in infants. They wanted to know if depth perception is a learned behavior or if it is something that we are born with. To study this, Gibson and Walk conducted the visual cliff experiment.

They studied 36 infants between the ages of six and 14 months, all of whom could crawl. The infants were placed one at a time on a visual cliff. A visual cliff was created using a large glass table that was raised about a foot off the floor. Half of the glass table had a checker pattern underneath in order to create the appearance of a ‘shallow side.’

In order to create a ‘deep side,’ a checker pattern was created on the floor; this side is the visual cliff. The placement of the checker pattern on the floor creates the illusion of a sudden drop-off. Researchers placed a foot-wide centerboard between the shallow side and the deep side. Gibson and Walk found the following:

• Nine of the infants did not move off the centerboard.
• All of the 27 infants who did move crossed into the shallow side when their mothers called them from the shallow side.
• Three of the infants crawled off the visual cliff toward their mother when called from the deep side.
• When called from the deep side, the remaining 24 children either crawled to the shallow side or cried because they could not cross the visual cliff and make it to their mother.

What this study helped demonstrate is that depth perception is likely an inborn train in humans.

Among these experiments and psychological tests, we see boundaries pushed and theories taking on a life of their own. It is through the endless stream of psychological experimentation that we can see simple hypotheses become guiding theories for those in this field. The greater field of psychology became a formal field of experimental study in 1879, when Wilhelm Wundt established the first laboratory dedicated solely to psychological research in Leipzig, Germany. Wundt was the first person to refer to himself as a psychologist. Since 1879, psychology has grown into a massive collection of:

• methods of practice

It’s also a specialty area in the field of healthcare. None of this would have been possible without these and many other important psychological experiments that have stood the test of time.

• 20 Most Unethical Experiments in Psychology
• What Careers are in Experimental Psychology?
• 10 Things to Know About the Psychology of Psychotherapy

About Education: Psychology

Explorable.com

Mental Floss.com

About the Author

After earning a Bachelor of Arts in Psychology from Rutgers University and then a Master of Science in Clinical and Forensic Psychology from Drexel University, Kristen began a career as a therapist at two prisons in Philadelphia. At the same time she volunteered as a rape crisis counselor, also in Philadelphia. After a few years in the field she accepted a teaching position at a local college where she currently teaches online psychology courses. Kristen began writing in college and still enjoys her work as a writer, editor, professor and mother.

• 5 Best Online Ph.D. Marriage and Family Counseling Programs
• Top 5 Online Doctorate in Educational Psychology
• 5 Best Online Ph.D. in Industrial and Organizational Psychology Programs
• Top 10 Online Master’s in Forensic Psychology
• 10 Most Affordable Counseling Psychology Online Programs
• 10 Most Affordable Online Industrial Organizational Psychology Programs
• 10 Most Affordable Online Developmental Psychology Online Programs
• 15 Most Affordable Online Sport Psychology Programs
• 10 Most Affordable School Psychology Online Degree Programs
• Top 50 Online Psychology Master’s Degree Programs
• Top 25 Online Master’s in Educational Psychology
• Top 25 Online Master’s in Industrial/Organizational Psychology
• Top 10 Most Affordable Online Master’s in Clinical Psychology Degree Programs
• Top 6 Most Affordable Online PhD/PsyD Programs in Clinical Psychology
• 50 Great Small Colleges for a Bachelor’s in Psychology
• 50 Most Innovative University Psychology Departments
• The 30 Most Influential Cognitive Psychologists Alive Today
• Top 30 Affordable Online Psychology Degree Programs
• 30 Most Influential Neuroscientists
• Top 40 Websites for Psychology Students and Professionals
• Top 30 Psychology Blogs
• 25 Celebrities With Animal Phobias
• Your Phobias Illustrated (Infographic)
• 15 Inspiring TED Talks on Overcoming Challenges
• 10 Fascinating Facts About the Psychology of Color
• 15 Scariest Mental Disorders of All Time
• 15 Things to Know About Mental Disorders in Animals
• 13 Most Deranged Serial Killers of All Time

Site Information

• About Online Psychology Degree Guide

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2024 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

8 Famous Social Experiments

Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Emily Swaim is a board-certified science editor who has worked with top digital publishing brands like Voices for Biodiversity, Study.com, GoodTherapy, and Vox.

A social experiment is a type of research performed in psychology to investigate how people respond in certain social situations. 

In many of these experiments, the experimenters will include confederates who are people who act like regular participants but who are actually acting the part. Such experiments are often used to gain insight into social psychology phenomena.

Do people really stop to appreciate the beauty of the world? How can society encourage people to engage in healthy behaviors? Is there anything that can be done to bring peace to rival groups?

Social psychologists have been tackling questions like these for decades, and some of the results of their experiments just might surprise you.

Robbers Cave Social Experiment

Why do conflicts tend to occur between different groups? According to psychologist Muzafer Sherif, intergroup conflicts tend to arise from competition for resources, stereotypes, and prejudices. In a controversial experiment, the researchers placed 22 boys between the ages of 11 and 12 in two groups at a camp in the Robbers Cave Park in Oklahoma.

The boys were separated into two groups and spent the first week of the experiment bonding with their other group members. It wasn't until the second phase of the experiment that the children learned that there was another group, at which point the experimenters placed the two groups in direct competition with each other.

This led to considerable discord, as the boys clearly favored their own group members while they disparaged the members of the other group. In the final phase, the researchers staged tasks that required the two groups to work together. These shared tasks helped the boys get to know members of the other group and eventually led to a truce between the rivals.  

The 'Violinist in the Metro' Social Experiment

In 2007, acclaimed violinist Josh Bell posed as a street musician at a busy Washington, D.C. subway station. Bell had just sold out a concert with an average ticket price of $100 each.

He is one of the most renowned musicians in the world and was playing on a handcrafted violin worth more than $3.5 million. Yet most people scurried on their way without stopping to listen to the music. When children would occasionally stop to listen, their parents would grab them and quickly usher them on their way.

The experiment raised some interesting questions about how we not only value beauty but whether we truly stop to appreciate the remarkable works of beauty that are around us.

The Piano Stairs Social Experiment

How can you get people to change their daily behavior and make healthier choices? In one social experiment sponsored by Volkswagen as part of their Fun Theory initiative, making even the most mundane activities fun can inspire people to change their behavior.

In the experiment, a set of stairs was transformed into a giant working keyboard. Right next to the stairs was an escalator, so people were able to choose between taking the stairs or taking the escalator. The results revealed that 66% more people took the stairs instead of the escalator.  

Adding an element of fun can inspire people to change their behavior and choose the healthier alternative.

The Marshmallow Test Social Experiment

During the late 1960s and early 1970s, a psychologist named Walter Mischel led a series of experiments on delayed gratification. Mischel was interested in learning whether the ability to delay gratification might be a predictor of future life success.

In the experiments, children between the ages of 3 and 5 were placed in a room with a treat (often a marshmallow or cookie). Before leaving the room, the experimenter told each child that they would receive a second treat if the first treat was still on the table after 15 minutes.  

Follow-up studies conducted years later found that the children who were able to delay gratification did better in a variety of areas, including academically. Those who had been able to wait the 15 minutes for the second treat tended to have higher SAT scores and more academic success (according to parent surveys).  

The results suggest that this ability to wait for gratification is not only an essential skill for success but also something that forms early on and lasts throughout life.

The Smoky Room Social Experiment

If you saw someone in trouble, do you think you would try to help? Psychologists have found that the answer to this question is highly dependent on the number of other people present. We are much more likely to help when we are the only witness but much less likely to lend a hand when we are part of a crowd.

The phenomenon came to the public's attention after the gruesome murder of a young woman named Kitty Genovese. According to the classic tale, while multiple people may have witnessed her attack, no one called for help until it was much too late.

This behavior was identified as an example of the bystander effect , or the failure of people to take action when there are other people present. (In reality, several witnesses did immediately call 911, so the real Genovese case was not a perfect example of the bystander effect.)  

In one classic experiment, researchers had participants sit in a room to fill out questionnaires. Suddenly, the room began to fill with smoke. In some cases the participant was alone, in some there were three unsuspecting participants in the room, and in the final condition, there was one participant and two confederates.

In the situation involving the two confederates who were in on the experiment, these actors ignored the smoke and went on filling out their questionnaires. When the participants were alone, about three-quarters of the participants left the room calmly to report the smoke to the researchers.

In the condition with three real participants, only 38% reported the smoke. In the final condition where the two confederates ignored the smoke, a mere 10% of participants left to report the smoke.   The experiment is a great example of how much people rely on the responses of others to guide their actions.

When something is happening, but no one seems to be responding, people tend to take their cues from the group and assume that a response is not required.

Carlsberg Social Experiment

Have you ever felt like people have judged you unfairly based on your appearance? Or have you ever gotten the wrong first impression of someone based on how they looked? Unfortunately, people are all too quick to base their decisions on snap judgments made when they first meet people.

These impressions based on what's on the outside sometimes cause people to overlook the characteristics and qualities that lie on the inside. In one rather amusing social experiment, which actually started out as an advertisement , unsuspecting couples walked into a crowded movie theater.

All but two of the 150 seats were already full. The twist is that the 148 already-filled seats were taken by a bunch of rather rugged and scary-looking male bikers. What would you do in this situation? Would you take one of the available seats and enjoy the movie, or would you feel intimidated and leave?

In the informal experiment, not all of the couples ended up taking a seat, but those who eventually did were rewarded with cheers from the crowd and a round of free Carlsberg beers.

The exercise served as a great example of why people shouldn't always judge a book by its cover.

Halo Effect Social Experiment

In an experiment described in a paper published in 1920, psychologist Edward Thorndike asked commanding officers in the military to give ratings of various characteristics of their subordinates.

Thorndike was interested in learning how impressions of one quality, such as intelligence, bled over onto perceptions of other personal characteristics, such as leadership, loyalty, and professional skill.   Thorndike discovered that when people hold a good impression of one characteristic, those good feelings tend to affect perceptions of other qualities.

For example, thinking someone is attractive can create a halo effect that leads people also to believe that a person is kind, smart, and funny.   The opposite effect is also true. Negative feelings about one characteristic lead to negative impressions of an individual's other features.

When people have a good impression of one characteristic, those good feelings tend to affect perceptions of other qualities.

False Consensus Social Experiment

During the late 1970s, researcher Lee Ross and his colleagues performed some eye-opening experiments.   In one experiment, the researchers had participants choose a way to respond to an imagined conflict and then estimate how many people would also select the same resolution.

They found that no matter which option the respondents chose, they tended to believe that the vast majority of other people would also choose the same option. In another study, the experimenters asked students on campus to walk around carrying a large advertisement that read "Eat at Joe's."

The researchers then asked the students to estimate how many other people would agree to wear the advertisement. They found that those who agreed to carry the sign believed that the majority of people would also agree to carry the sign. Those who refused felt that the majority of people would refuse as well.

The results of these experiments demonstrate what is known in psychology as the false consensus effect .

No matter what our beliefs, options, or behaviors, we tend to believe that the majority of other people also agree with us and act the same way we do.

A Word From Verywell

Social psychology is a rich and varied field that offers fascinating insights into how people behave in groups and how behavior is influenced by social pressures. Exploring some of these classic social psychology experiments can provide a glimpse at some of the fascinating research that has emerged from this field of study.

Frequently Asked Questions

An example of a social experiment might be one that investigates the halo effect, a phenomenon in which people make global evaluations of other people based on single traits. An experimenter might have participants interact with people who are either average looking or very beautiful, and then ask the respondents to rate the individual on unrelated qualities such as intelligence, skill, and kindness. The purpose of this social experiment would be to seek if more attractive people are also seen as being smarter, more capable, and nicer.

The Milgram obedience experiment is one of the most famous social experiments ever performed. In the experiment, researchers instructed participants to deliver what they believed was a painful or even dangerous electrical shock to another person. In reality, the person pretending to be shocked was an actor and the electrical shocks were simply pretend. Milgram's results suggested that as many as 65% of participants would deliver a dangerous electrical shock because they were ordered to do so by an authority figure.

A social experiment is defined by its purpose and methods. Such experiments are designed to study human behavior in a social context. They often involved placing participants in a controlled situation in order to observe how they respond to certain situation or events. 

A few ideas for simple social experiments might involve:

• Stand in a crowd and stare at a random spot on the ground to see if other people will stop to also look
• Copy someone's body language and see how they respond
• Stand next to someone in an elevator even if there is plenty of space to stand elsewhere
• Smile at people in public and see how many smile back
• Give random strangers a small prize and see how they respond

Sherif M. Superordinate goals in the reduction of intergroup conflict . American Journal of Sociology . 1958;63(4):349-356. doi:10.1086/222258

Peeters M, Megens C, van den Hoven E, Hummels C, Brombacher A. Social Stairs: Taking the Piano Staircase towards long-term behavioral change . In: Berkovsky S, Freyne J, eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science . Vol 7822. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg; 2013. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-37157-8_21

Mischel W, Ebbeson EB, Zeiss A. Cognitive and attentional mechanisms in delay of gratification . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1972;21(2):204–218. doi:10.1037/h0032198

Mischel W, Shoda Y, Peake PK. Predicting adolescent cognitive and self-regulatory competencies from preschool delay of gratification: Identifying diagnostic conditions . Developmental Psychology. 1990;26(6):978-986. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.26.6.978

Benderly, BL. Psychology's tall tales . gradPSYCH Magazine . 2012;9:20.

Latane B, Darley JM. Group inhibition of bystander intervention in emergencies . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1968;10(3):215-221. doi:10.1037/h0026570

Thorndike EL. A constant error in psychological ratings . Journal of Applied Psychology. 1920;4(1):25-29. doi:10.1037/h0071663

Talamas SN, Mayor KI, Perrett DI.  Blinded by beauty: Attractiveness bias and accurate perceptions of academic performance.   PLoS One . 2016;11(2):e0148284. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0148284

Ross, L, Greene, D, & House, P. The "false consensus effect": An egocentric bias in social perception and attribution processes . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology . 1977;13(3):279-301. doi:10.1016/0022-1031(77)90049-X

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

9 of the Most Influential Social Psychology Experiments in History

For those interested in understanding how social interactions can shape behavior and mental processes, this article dives deep into some of the most influential social psychology experiments in history. Covering everything from the perpetrator-victim dynamic prevalent in Stanley Milgram’s infamous obedience experiment to the false consensus effect just a few years later, these social psychology experiments provide invaluable insights into the human psyche.

Through carefully conducted studies such as Lee Ross’ Diffusion of Responsibility Experiment and Edward Thorndike’s Halo Effect Experiment, as well as famous experiments such as Albert Bandura’s Bobo Doll Experiment, we are able to better comprehend why people act the way they do in certain situations. Come explore these incredible, influential experiments that have left their mark on social psychology and the world!

To learn more about what is social psychology check out our article.

The Stanford Prison Experiment, 1971

1.1. overview.

The Stanford Prison Experiment was a widely known and controversial social psychology experiment conducted in 1971 at Stanford University by Professor Philip Zimbardo to investigate how ordinary, healthy people would react to being made prisoners or prison guards. It has since become a classic social psychology experiment and is still studied today. However, the experiment has come under considerable criticism in recent years due to ethical issues.

1.2. Results

Twenty-four male college students were recruited for the experiment, which involved them playing the role of either prisoner or guard. Each group was then allotted 8-hour shifts and treated as if they were in a real prison situation. The prisoners were kept in the makeshift prison set up in the basement of the Psychology Department, where the guards were responsible for ensuring the inmates followed prison regulations. The participants were screened to guarantee they had no mental or physical problems that may have influenced their behavior.

The experiment concluded that it is possible to change the behavior of individuals when placed in groups, even when they are not aware they are being observed. The study showed how quickly people will conform to expected social roles and how easily ‘ordinary’ people can be transformed from ‘good’ to ‘evil.’ Both the prisoners and guards revealed stereotypical characteristics associated with correctional officers; the prisoners became emotionally unstable and submissive, whilst the guards became hostile and authoritative.

1.3. Criticisms

Philip Zimbardo’s experiment, the Stanford Prison Experiment, is like a dark mirror reflecting our society’s innermost fears. In 1971, Zimbardo conducted an experiment in which college students were randomly assigned to be either prisoners or guards in a simulated prison environment. The results of this study showed that people could quickly adapt to roles and lose their sense of morality when placed in certain situations.

The impact of the Stanford Prison Experiment has been far-reaching; it has been used as evidence for why prisons are so dangerous and how they can lead to psychological damage among inmates. It also serves as a reminder that power dynamics between individuals can have serious consequences if not monitored closely.

Critics have argued that the ethical practices employed by Zimbardo during his experiment were questionable at best, with some participants experiencing extreme distress due to their role-playing experience. Despite these criticisms, many believe that the experiment still provides valuable insight into human behavior and psychology today. Personifying its lessons, we could say that the Stanford Prison Experiment speaks volumes about how easily our moral compass can become distorted when faced with authority figures or oppressive environments.

The Asch Conformity Experiment, 1951

2.1. overview.

The Asch Conformity Experiment, also known as the “Asch Line Study,” was a series of experiments conducted by psychologist Solomon Asch in 1951 to test how people tend to conform to social pressures. The study was composed of two groups: one consisting of actual participants (the control group) and the other including actors (the confederates).

During the experiment, the participants were asked to view a line on one board and then match it to one of three lines on another board with their own judgment. Initially, the group was given correct answers; however, after a few attempts, the actors began to give wrong answers intentionally to observe how the participant would respond.

2.2. Results

The results showed that 75% of the participants conformed to the incorrect majority opinion given by the confederate group—even when it obviously contradicted their own senses. In addition, the control group with only real subjects produced a much lower rate of conformity, with less than 1% ever selecting the incorrect answer. This demonstrated that it was not the difficulty of the task but rather the presence of an influential social group that caused the majority of participants to deny their own thoughts in order to fit in with the others.

2.3. Criticisms

Critics have argued that the experiment was not diverse enough since it mainly used college-aged men as its sample population. Additionally, because the experiment did not include females, it has been suggested that the results of the cave experiment cannot be generalized to all genders.

Furthermore, critics have argued that the experimental design lacked a true measure of real-life social pressure since the actors and real participants knew the situation was artificial. Despite these criticisms, the Asch experiment remains one of the most important social psychology studies in history, and its core message about the power of conformity to influence opinions and behavior continues to be studied and discussed today.

We tackled the topic of conformity in our article about social influence .

The Bobo Doll Experiment, 1961

3.1. overview.

The Bobo Doll experiment was a series of experiments conducted by psychologist Albert Bandura between 1961 and 1963 at Stanford University, aimed at studying the extent to which human behavior is based on social imitation rather than inherited genetic factors.

Three groups of 24 participants each, aged from 3 to 6 years old, were chosen for the experiment – a control group (with no interaction with any adults), an aggressive group (observing an adult behaving aggressively towards the doll), and a passive group (observing a more passive adult playing with the doll). The results of the studies were a strong indication that children were strongly influenced by watching other people’s behavior and imitated it afterward in their own behavior.

3.2. Results

The study found that the children in the aggressive and passive groups were significantly more likely to behave aggressively towards the bobo doll than those in the control group, even though the latter had not been exposed to any type of model behavior. When it came to gender differences, boys showed more aggressive behavior when exposed to the aggressive behavior of male models, while girls showed similar findings, albeit less drastic.

Moreover, the study also contained a memory test during which wrong answers were punished with electric shocks; here, it appeared as if the individual completing the test was affected by the electric shocks, suggesting that authority figures can greatly influence behavior, even if not intentionally. Finally, the study also showed that when urged to continue with the experience even after protests from the individual receiving electric shocks, they complied with the requests, highlighting the power of authority within social situations.

3.3. Criticisms

Although the experiment raised widely accepted as evidence for the hypothesis that individuals learn behavior by observing others, the Bobo Doll experiment has been criticized in recent years. One key point of criticism is that Bandura’s research neglected to look at positive modeling – for example, modeling of altruism or helpful behavior, instead focusing solely on aggression.

Additionally, some have argued that, due to its relatively small sample size and laboratory-based approach, the study failed to take into account real-life influences, such as environmental variables, which would have provided additional context. Despite these criticisms, the Bobo Doll experiment remains one of the most famous studies in psychology, providing significant evidence for the importance of social learning theory in understanding human behavior.

The Milgram Experiment, 1963

4.1. overview.

The Milgram Experiment was a famous social psychology experiment and experiment conducted by Stanley Milgram in the 1960s. Its aim was to test people’s obedience to authority. The study examined how far people would go when an authority figure instructed them to perform acts that conflicted with their morals.

Specifically, it sought to find out if non-Nazi populations, such as those from the United States, would follow orders to harm other persons. One of the motivations for this investigation was the results of World War II, during which Nazi leader Adolf Eichmann was able to use “I was only following orders” as a legal defense at the Nuremberg trials.

4.2. Results

The experiment was conducted at Yale University in 1961 and included unsuspecting participants who were told that the study was about memory. Participants believed they were participating in a study where they would be required to act as teachers while an unsuspecting confederate (learned) was on the other side of the wall. Their task was to ask questions to the learner, and if they received a wrong answer, press a button administering shock, ranging from 15 volts to 450 volts.

The results showed that despite protests and cries from the learner, 63% of the participants continued pressing the switch. Milgram’s experiment revealed that human beings are conditioned to obey authority figures, even when going against their natural moral code.

4.3. Criticisms

Despite its significance, the Milgram Experiment has been heavily criticized over the years, and some have argued that the study violated ethical standards. The argument is that causing psychological and emotional distress to unwitting volunteers is wrong. Other critics have argued that the role reversals or changes in lab settings would yield different outcomes and should have been considered.

In response to these criticisms, some scientists have suggested controversial experiments by reducing the voltage administered to the learner or conducting newer versions of the experiment in naturalistic settings. In addition, the way modern studies measure obedience is greatly different – contemporary research focuses on motives and reactions participants have after the experiment. These proposed changes would enable researchers to look into extraneous factors influencing obedience versus harm caused to participants.

The Halo Effect Experiment, 1977

5.1. overview.

The halo effect is commonly defined as the phenomenon in which a positive evaluation of one trait extends to an overall perception of an individual. This cognitive bias has been observed by social psychologists for over a century, beginning with psychologist Edward Thorndike’s studies regarding commanding officers in the military.

The halo effect is also known as the “what is beautiful is good” principle or the “physical attractiveness stereotype.” This phenomenon has had a lasting impact on our evaluation and judgment of others. Additionally, the term “halo effect” was named after its likeness to that of the halo painted above the heads of saints and holy figures in religious art, generally regarded as symbols of moral goodness.

To investigate this phenomenon further, Nisbett and Wilson conducted an experiment in 1977 at the University of Michigan. As research participants, they recruited college students who were asked to watch a pre-recorded psychology instructor tape with two different attitudes—one likable and another unlikable. After watching the videotapes, they filled in a questionnaire that asked them to rate the lecturer’s physical appearance, mannerisms, and accent on an 8-point scale ranging from “like extremely” to “dislike extremely.”

Nisbett and Wilson’s study showed that despite the lecturers having the same mannerisms and accents, the respondents rated the lecturer more favorably if their attitude projected a likable demeanor. Moreover, Nisbett and Wilson discovered that people are unaware when the halo effect phenomenon occurs; they inferred that the respondents relied on their initial impression of the lecturer without being aware that it influenced their subsequent assessment. In total, 278 college students participated in the study.

5.2. Results

The results of this study showed that the ratings of the lecturer responded differently depending on his behavior—those who saw him adopt a likable demeanor in the video gave him higher ratings than those who saw him act in an unlikable manner. Furthermore, those who rated the lecturer highly were more likely to believe that he was intelligent, hardworking, kind, and humorous. This suggests that the halo effect can lead people to make inaccurate assumptions about someone based solely on their appearance or behavior.

Moreover, an updated study on the halo effect also suggests that a negative assessment of certain traits can similarly affect subsequent perceptions. For instance, if someone didn’t like the instructor’s physical appearance, they are more likely to rate him as unintelligent and lazy. This provides evidence that negative feelings about one characteristic can extend to an individual’s other features.

5.3. Criticisms

Despite its analytical contributions to the field, some scholars have questioned Nisbett and Wilson’s use of college students as the research participants in the study due to their limited exposure to the concept at hand. Additionally, since the focus of this experiment utilized only pre-recorded videos, there is also criticism of the limitation in the accuracy of facial expressions and vocal intonations. However, this study does provide evidence that people may rely on initial impressions when making assessments, resulting in cognitive bias and inaccurate judgments.

The False Consensus Effect Experiment, 1974

6.1. overview.

The False Consensus Effect Experiment was conducted in 1974 by Professor Lee Ross, then at Stanford University. The experiment focused on how people can form a “false consensus” about the beliefs and preferences of others. Specifically, it asked participants to read situations with two alternative responses and predict which one other people would choose. In the study, most subjects overestimated the likelihood that others would do the same thing as them, even when the situation was hypothetical and there was no real data to indicate what choice the majority of people might make. Furthermore, researchers found that the anticipation of a false consensus could lead people to display negative predictions about the personalities of those who did not share their choice.

6.2. Results

The results of Lee Ross’s experiment demonstrated the false consensus bias – the tendency to overestimate the extent to which others agree with one’s own beliefs and behaviors. He and his colleagues also conducted experiments in the late 1970s to demonstrate how this bias operates in estimating other people’s behaviors and causes. For example, participants chose a resolution to an imagined conflict, then estimated how many others would choose the same.

In another experiment, students were asked to carry a sign that read “eat at joe’s” to measure how many other people agreed with the sign. Those who agreed believed the majority of people would also agree; those who refused believed the majority would refuse. This experiment showed the false consensus effect – we tend to believe the majority of people agree with us and act the same way.

6.3. Criticisms

The false consensus effect is like a mirage in the desert, appearing to be something it’s not. It occurs when people overestimate how much other people agree with them. This bias can lead to an inaccurate perception of reality and cause individuals to make decisions based on false assumptions. The false consensus effect is most likely to occur when someone has strong beliefs or opinions about a particular topic and assumes that others share their views.

The Chameleon Effect Experiment, 1990

7.1. overview.

The Chameleon Effect is a phenomenon of unintentional mirroring, which was observed and studied for the first time in 1939 at the University of Iowa by Dr. Wendell Johnson. It involves someone mimicking another’s body posture, hand gestures, or even speaking accents without realizing it. In the 1990s, researchers Tanya Chartrand and John Bargh conducted follow-up experiments to further study this effect, which would be known as the “Chameleon Effect.”

7.2. Results

During their experiment, Chartrand and Bargh secretly mimicked the actions and behaviors of some test subjects during their conversations and monitored the responses. Those that were mimicked found the researchers more likable compared to those not mimicked. The results point to how people often subconsciously respond to others even if they weren’t consciously aware of the imitating behavior.

7.3. Criticisms

Despite being a popular explanation for why people tend to mirror each other’s behavior, the Chameleon Effect has been criticized by some. These criticisms mostly come from the idea that the phenomenon could potentially involve manipulation as well as desensitizing people to be more vulnerable to conformity and impressions. Additionally, some suggest there may be other reasons why people might mirror each other other than the Chameleon Effect itself, such as insecurity or politeness.

The Diffusion of Responsibility Experiment, 1968

8.1. overview.

The diffusion of responsibility experiment, conducted in 1968 at Stanford University, is an iconic social psychology experiment. It is studied to understand the bystander effect, a phenomenon in which people are more reluctant to express helpfulness or give aid if other bystanders are present.

Stanley Milgram and John Darley conducted the experiment to analyze how the presence of others could influence helping behaviors in kids. The study was also connected to concepts from Lev Vygotsky’s theory referring to emotional role-taking and group cohesiveness when observing the behavior of other members in a particular situation.

In the study, 600 children between the ages of four to six were tested. Each child was presented with one marshmallow, and they were promised to receive a second one if it still remained on the table after 15 minutes.

The results showed that only one-third of the children had delayed their gratification long enough to obtain the second marshmallow. Follow-up studies demonstrated that those children who managed to delay gratification and obtain the second marshmallow had higher SAT scores and were found to be more competent than their peers who could not wait and ate the marshmallow immediately.

8.2. Results

The results of the diffusion of responsibility experiment in 1968 proved to be true to an extent. Its findings added significantly to defining the bystander effect and the effects of the presence of other people, which may inhibit helpers’ reactions to those in need. The research showed that the number of bystanders could have a profound effect on one’s decision on whether to act or to remain inactive. This study takes into account the psychological phenomenon known as diffusion of responsibility which partially explains this inhibition of helping behavior.

8.3. Criticisms

Although the diffusion of responsibility experiment has contributed greatly to our understanding of the bystander effect, there is some criticism surrounding the validity and applicability of the experiment change in the setting in which it was conducted. Namely, there is some concern around the age of the participants, as well as the amount of time provided for the test, both of which may have had an influence on the outcome. In addition, since the experiment was conducted in 1972, there have been numerous changes to society and culture that may not have been taken into account by the authors at the time, leaving some questions as to its usefulness in current situations.

The Cognitive Dissonance Experiment, 1957

Leon Festinger’s Cognitive Dissonance Experiment of 1957 addresses the mental discomfort experienced when trying to hold two conflicting beliefs. The experiment sought to identify how this dissonance is resolved by people and to gain further insight into our thoughts and behaviors.

Stanley Schachter and Jerome E. Singer conducted the experiment with the intention of testing the cognitive theory of emotional arousal. They injected participants with epinephrine, a hormone that can produce side effects– both physical and psychological – such as increased heart rate, faster breathing, and an elevation in blood pressure.

The study featured a confederate who acted either in one of two ways: they were either pleasant or unpleasant. As knowledge of the injection’s side effects became aware to the participants, their emotions shifted accordingly. This revealed that dissonance leads to emotional arousal in individuals, leading them to act in agreement with emotion-triggering cognition.

In light of its results, critics have since made a note of the implausibility of Schachter and Singer’s study, claiming that it does little to address the complexities of the cognitive dissonance theory. By comparison, Leon Festinger’s cognitive dissonance experiment assumes that everyone holds many different cognitions about the world. It then examines what happens when those cognitions do not fit together adequately. Discrepancies are accepted if an event or occurrence makes sense; if not, these discrepancies lead to a state of tension or dissonance.

Interested readers may refer to festive ger’s 1959 article, “Cognitive Dissonance,” for a more in-depth exploration of the experiment’s results and implications. The study remains a classic social psychology experiment, illustrating how we reconcile the conflicts created by existing contradictory beliefs.

The 10 most influential social psychology experiments in history can all be summarized by their contribution to the development of our understanding of human behavior. From Milgram’s famous study revealing our willingness to obey authority figures, to Bandura’s Bobo Doll Experiment establishing the power of aggression and imitation, to Nisbett and Wilson’s Halo Effect Experiment controlling biases towards physical attractiveness, these studies provide insights into the power of group dynamics, social pressures, and cognitive bias that continue to inform and impact modern society today.

Learning about these classic social psychology experiments also encourages us to question our assumptions, explore alternative perspectives, and strive for greater understanding and acceptance. Whether by examining the limitations of data collection or the ethical implications of research methods, these landmark studies have built our knowledge base and served as a reminder of the importance of respect and empathy.

In conclusion, the 10 most influential social psychology experiments listed reflect an inspiring effort to better understand human behavior and engage in much-needed conversations around this fascinating field.

Frequently Asked Questions

What were the initial experiments in social psychology.

Norman Triplett’s 1898 experiment is credited with being the first social psychology experiment. He examined the effects of competition on a simple task – winding hempen string – and found that people performed better when in the presence of others than when alone. His findings ushered in an exciting new field of research into how people are both influenced by, and affect, the social world around them.

Why are experiments are used in social psychology?

Experiments provide valuable insight into human behavior and allow for cause and effect relationships to be better understood. They are an essential tool conducting research in social psychology, allowing the researcher to observe how individuals respond in different situational contexts. Experimentation allows us to answer important questions about social behavior, making it an invaluable research method.

What are social psychology topics?

Social psychology explores the fascinating ways that people interact with each other, from understanding why prejudicial behavior occurs to analyzing why some people have a greater degree of influence over human behaviors than others. Social psychology has played a major role in helping us understand human behavior. It has made invaluable contributions through its research on various topics like prejudice and discrimination, gender, culture, social influence, interpersonal relations, group behavior, aggression etc.

What is an example of a social experiment?

An example of a social experiment is Stanley Milgram’s obedience experiment conducted in 1963 which tested human subjects’ willingness to obey orders regardless of the outcomes. This controversial experiment was conducted in order to understand how far people would go to follow orders from authority figures, even if it meant inflicting pain on another person.

Ahhh! What an article that was. Still hungry for some knowledge? See our recommended posts:

How To Use Psychology in Marketing – A Guide Loss Aversion Marketing Strategies to Increase Sales

What was the social experiment of the 60s?

The Social Experiment of the 1960s was the Milgram experiment, conducted by Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram. It tested participants’ willingness to obey authority when asked to do something that conflicted with their own moral values. The experiment yielded powerful insights into human behavior and the power of authority, making it one of the most influential experiments of its time.

Leave a Comment Cancel

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Email Address:

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar

IResearchNet

Social Psychology Experiments

Social psychology experiments have played a pivotal role in unraveling the intricate tapestry of human behavior, cognition, and emotions within the social context. These experiments represent more than just scientific inquiries; they serve as windows into the fundamental aspects of human nature and the ways in which we interact with others. This article delves into a selection of famous experiments in social psychology, each a milestone in understanding the complexities of human social behavior.

Thesis Statement: The significance of these famous experiments extends far beyond the realm of academia, shaping our understanding of conformity, obedience, group dynamics, morality, and the subconscious biases that influence our decisions and actions. Through these groundbreaking studies, we gain valuable insights into the human condition, prompting us to question, explore, and reflect upon the intricate web of social interactions that define our lives.

Famous Experiments in Social Psychology

The Bennington College study was conducted by sociologist Theodore Newcomb from 1935 until 1939. The study examined the attitudes of students attending the then all-female Bennington College early in the college’s history; indeed, the study began during the first year that the college had a senior class.

Solomon Asch’s Conformity experiments in the 1950s starkly demonstrated the power of conformity on people’s estimation of the length of lines. On over a third of the trials, participants conformed to the majority, even though the majority judgment was clearly wrong. Seventy-five percent of the participants conformed at least once during the experiment.

In Muzafer Sherif ’s Robbers Cave experiment (1954) boys were divided into two competing groups to explore how much hostility and aggression would emerge. It is also known as realistic group conflict theory, because the intergroup conflict was induced through competition over resources.

Leon Festinger’s Cognitive Dissonance experiment subjects were asked to perform a boring task. They were divided into two groups and given two different pay scales. At the end of the study, participants who were paid $1 to say that they enjoyed the task and another group of participants were paid $20 to say the same lie. The first group ($1) would later believe that they like the task better than the second group ($20). People justified the lie by changing their previously unfavorable attitudes about the task (Festinger and Carlsmith 1959).

Stanley Milgram’s Obedience to Authority experiment has shown how far people would go to obey an authority figure. Following the events of the Holocaust in World War II Stanley Milgram’s experiments of the 1960s/1970s showed that normal American citizens were capable of following orders to the point of causing extreme suffering in an innocent human being.

Albert Bandura’s Bobo Doll experiment has demonstrated how aggression is learned by imitation (Bandura et al. 1961). Bandura’s experimental work was one of the first studies in a long line of research showing how exposure to media violence leads to aggressive behavior in the observers.

In Philip Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison experiment a simulated exercise between student prisoners and guards showed how far people would follow an adopted role. This was an important demonstration of the power of the immediate social situation, and its capacity to overwhelm normal personality traits (Haney et al. 1973).

The Milgram Experiment

Background and Context

The Milgram Experiment, conducted by psychologist Stanley Milgram in the early 1960s, arose in a climate of post-World War II questions about obedience, authority, and moral responsibility. Inspired by the Nuremberg Trials and the revelation of the atrocities committed by Nazi personnel who claimed to be “just following orders,” Milgram sought to explore the extent to which individuals would obey authority figures, even when it conflicted with their own moral beliefs.

Experiment Setup and Procedure

The experiment involved three key roles: the experimenter (authority figure), the teacher (participant), and the learner (an actor). Participants believed they were assisting in a study examining the effects of punishment on learning. The teacher was instructed to administer increasingly severe electric shocks to the learner for incorrect responses in a word-pair memory test. Unbeknownst to the teacher, the learner did not actually receive shocks, but their responses were scripted to simulate distress and pain.

Ethical Concerns and Criticisms

The Milgram Experiment has been widely criticized for its ethical implications. Participants were exposed to significant psychological stress and believed they were causing harm to another person, potentially leading to long-lasting emotional trauma. Critics argue that the experiment lacked proper informed consent, and the debriefing process may not have been sufficient to alleviate the distress experienced by participants.

Major Findings and Their Impact

The Milgram Experiment revealed astonishing results. Contrary to expectations, a significant proportion of participants, under the pressure of the authority figure’s commands, continued to administer shocks up to potentially lethal levels, even when they were aware of the learner’s distress. This demonstrated the profound influence of authority figures on individual behavior.

The study shed light on the psychology of obedience and the potential for ordinary people to engage in harmful actions under the guise of following orders. Milgram’s findings raised ethical and moral questions about blind obedience and individual responsibility in the face of authority.

The Stanford Prison Experiment

The Stanford Prison Experiment, conducted by psychologist Philip Zimbardo in 1971, stands as one of the most notorious and influential studies in social psychology. Emerging during a tumultuous period in American history marked by social unrest and the questioning of authority, the experiment sought to investigate the psychological dynamics of power, authority, and the consequences of perceived roles within a simulated prison environment.

Description of the Experiment

The experiment involved the transformation of the basement of Stanford University’s psychology department into a mock prison. Volunteers were randomly assigned to play the roles of either guards or prisoners in a simulated prison environment. The participants quickly adapted to their roles, with guards displaying authoritarian behaviors, and prisoners experiencing psychological distress and rebellion. The study was originally intended to last two weeks but was terminated after only six days due to the alarming and unethical behaviors exhibited by both guards and prisoners.

Ethical Controversies

The Stanford Prison Experiment has been mired in ethical controversies. Critics argue that the psychological harm inflicted upon participants was severe, and the lack of proper oversight allowed the study to veer into dangerous territory. Questions have also been raised regarding the informed consent process, as participants were not fully aware of the potential psychological consequences of their involvement.

Key Findings and Implications

Despite its ethical shortcomings, the Stanford Prison Experiment yielded valuable insights into the malleability of human behavior in response to situational factors. It demonstrated how ordinary individuals could quickly adopt abusive and authoritarian roles when placed in positions of power. The study underscored the importance of ethical considerations in psychological research and prompted discussions about the responsibility of researchers to ensure the well-being of participants.

The implications of the study extend beyond academia, offering a cautionary tale about the potential for abuses of power and authority. It has influenced discussions on ethics in research, the psychology of group dynamics, and the understanding of how situational factors can shape behavior.

The Asch Conformity Experiment

Introduction and Historical Context

The Asch Conformity Experiment, conducted by Solomon Asch in the 1950s, remains a seminal study in the field of social psychology. Emerging in the post-World War II era, this experiment aimed to investigate the extent to which individuals conform to group norms and the impact of social pressure on individual decision-making.

Experiment Design and Methodology

In the Asch Conformity Experiment, participants were placed in a group of individuals, with the participant being the only true subject. The group was presented with a simple perceptual task: comparing the length of lines. Participants were asked to state which of several lines was of equal length to a reference line. Unknown to the participant, the other group members were confederates who had been instructed to give incorrect answers in some trials.

During the critical trials, the confederates deliberately provided incorrect answers that contradicted the obvious correct response. The participant, seated at the end of the row, faced the dilemma of whether to conform to the group’s incorrect consensus or assert their own judgment.

Conformity Results and Interpretations

The results of the Asch Conformity Experiment were striking. Despite the obvious correctness of their own judgments, participants frequently succumbed to group pressure and provided incorrect responses to match the consensus of the group. On average, about one-third of participants conformed to the group’s incorrect answers in the face of social pressure.

Asch’s findings underscored the potent influence of social conformity and the willingness of individuals to abandon their own perceptions and judgment in favor of group consensus. He also identified several factors that influenced the likelihood of conformity, such as the size of the majority and the unanimity of the group.

Influence on Social Psychology and Beyond

The Asch Conformity Experiment significantly impacted social psychology by highlighting the powerful role of social influence on human behavior. It prompted further research into group dynamics, conformity, and the psychology of social norms. Asch’s work laid the foundation for studies on topics such as groupthink, normative influence, and the conditions under which individuals are more likely to resist social pressure.

Beyond social psychology, the experiment has practical implications for understanding how conformity operates in everyday life, from peer pressure among adolescents to decision-making in organizations. The study has also been instrumental in discussions about individual autonomy and the tension between conforming to societal expectations and asserting one’s independent judgment.

The Asch Conformity Experiment remains a timeless exploration of the human propensity to conform and the psychological mechanisms at play when individuals navigate the tension between individuality and social cohesion.

The Robbers Cave Experiment

Background and Purpose of the Study

The Robbers Cave Experiment, conducted by psychologist Muzafer Sherif and his colleagues in 1954, was designed to investigate intergroup conflict and cooperation among children. The study emerged during a time when Cold War tensions and conflicts between nations were a prominent backdrop, prompting Sherif to explore the dynamics of group conflict on a smaller scale.

The central purpose of the study was to understand how group identities, competition, and cooperation could influence the attitudes and behaviors of individuals within groups and across groups. It sought to shed light on the origins of intergroup hostility and the potential for reconciliation.

Experimental Design and Procedures

The study took place at Robbers Cave State Park in Oklahoma and involved two phases.

• Group Formation : In the first phase, a group of 22 boys was divided into two groups, the Rattlers and the Eagles, with no prior knowledge of each other. The boys formed strong group identities through team-building activities and bonding experiences.
• Intergroup Competition : In the second phase, the two groups were introduced to each other and engaged in competitive activities, such as sports and contests, where rivalries quickly developed. The competition intensified intergroup conflicts, leading to name-calling, vandalism, and hostility.
• Intervention and Cooperation : To address the escalating conflict, the researchers initiated activities that required the groups to collaborate, such as solving common problems and working together towards common goals. These cooperative experiences aimed to reduce intergroup tensions.

Notable Findings and Insights on Intergroup Conflict

The Robbers Cave Experiment yielded several important findings:

• Intergroup conflict emerged swiftly when groups were formed and exposed to competition, even among previously unacquainted individuals.
• The competition exacerbated stereotypes and prejudices between the groups.
• Cooperation between groups, when introduced strategically, had the potential to reduce hostilities and foster intergroup harmony.
• The study illustrated the role of superordinate goals (common objectives that transcended group boundaries) in promoting cooperation and reducing conflict.

Practical Applications and Contributions

The Robbers Cave Experiment has had lasting implications in the fields of social psychology and conflict resolution. It provided valuable insights into the dynamics of intergroup conflict and cooperation, shedding light on the processes by which hostility between groups can be both fueled and mitigated.

The concept of superordinate goals, derived from the study, has been widely applied in conflict resolution efforts. By identifying shared objectives that require collaboration across group lines, individuals and societies have been able to bridge divides and work together toward common aims. The study’s lessons have informed strategies for reducing prejudice, improving intergroup relations, and fostering peace in various contexts, including education, organizational management, and international diplomacy.

The Robbers Cave Experiment remains a classic illustration of how group identities and competition can lead to conflict, while also highlighting the potential for cooperation and reconciliation when shared goals and positive intergroup interactions are promoted.

The Zimbardo Stanford Prison Experiment

Overview of the Experiment

The Zimbardo Stanford Prison Experiment, conducted by psychologist Philip Zimbardo in 1971, is a widely recognized and controversial study in the realm of social psychology. The experiment was designed to investigate the psychological effects of perceived power and authority within a simulated prison environment.

In this study, participants were randomly assigned to play the roles of either guards or prisoners in a mock prison set up in the basement of Stanford University’s psychology department. The experiment aimed to explore how individuals, when placed in positions of power or vulnerability, would react and adapt to their roles.

Ethical Considerations and Criticisms

The Zimbardo Stanford Prison Experiment has been marred by significant ethical concerns and criticisms. The study generated intense psychological distress among participants, with the guards exhibiting abusive and authoritarian behaviors, and the prisoners experiencing emotional and psychological harm. The experiment’s duration, initially planned for two weeks, was terminated after only six days due to the extreme and unethical behaviors displayed by participants.

Critics argue that the study lacked proper informed consent, as participants were not fully aware of the potential psychological consequences of their involvement. The absence of proper oversight and safeguards to protect the well-being of participants has been a focal point of ethical critique.

Psychological Effects on Participants

The Zimbardo Stanford Prison Experiment had profound psychological effects on its participants. Guards, assigned to positions of power, quickly adopted authoritarian roles, displaying abusive behaviors toward the prisoners. Prisoners, on the other hand, experienced distress, humiliation, and a sense of powerlessness.

The psychological effects on participants were so severe that the study was terminated prematurely to prevent further harm. Post-experiment interviews revealed that some participants struggled to differentiate between their roles and their true identities, emphasizing the significant impact of situational factors on individual behavior.

Enduring Influence on Social Psychology

Despite its ethical controversies, the Zimbardo Stanford Prison Experiment had a lasting influence on the field of social psychology. It highlighted the malleability of human behavior in response to situational factors and the potential for ordinary individuals to engage in abusive actions when placed in positions of authority.

The study contributed to discussions on ethics in research and the responsibility of researchers to prioritize the well-being of participants. It also prompted further investigations into the psychology of power, authority, and obedience, leading to a deeper understanding of the complexities of human behavior within social contexts.

The Zimbardo Stanford Prison Experiment remains a cautionary tale in the annals of psychology, reminding researchers of the ethical imperative to protect participants and the enduring influence of situational factors on human behavior.

The Little Albert Experiment

Introduction to the Study

The Little Albert Experiment is a classic and ethically controversial study conducted by behaviorist John B. Watson and his graduate student Rosalie Rayner in 1920. The experiment aimed to investigate the process of classical conditioning, particularly the acquisition of phobias and emotional responses in humans.

The study is named after its subject, a 9-month-old boy known as “Little Albert.” It remains a notable case study in the field of psychology due to its ethical concerns and contributions to the understanding of learned behaviors.

Experiment Details and Ethical Concerns

In the Little Albert Experiment, Little Albert was exposed to a white rat, a rabbit, a dog, a monkey, and other stimuli. Initially, he displayed no fear or aversion to these objects. However, Watson and Rayner sought to condition an emotional response in Little Albert by pairing the presentation of these stimuli with a loud, frightening noise (produced by striking a suspended steel bar with a hammer). As a result of this pairing, Little Albert began to exhibit fear and distress in response to the previously neutral stimuli, particularly the white rat.

The ethical concerns surrounding this experiment are significant. Little Albert was not provided with informed consent, and his emotional well-being was disregarded. The study also lacked proper debriefing, and the long-term consequences of Little Albert’s conditioning were not addressed. The ethical standards of today would prohibit such a study from being conducted.

Conditioning Process and Long-Term Implications

The Little Albert Experiment demonstrated the principles of classical conditioning in humans. It illustrated how conditioned emotional responses, such as fear and anxiety, could be acquired through association with previously neutral stimuli. In this case, Little Albert learned to fear the white rat because it had been consistently paired with a loud, frightening noise.

The long-term implications of the study are less clear due to a lack of follow-up research on Little Albert. It remains unknown whether his conditioned fears persisted or how they may have impacted his later development. The study’s ethical shortcomings prevent a comprehensive assessment of its long-term effects.

Contemporary Perspectives on the Study

The Little Albert Experiment is viewed with skepticism and ethical concern from contemporary perspectives. It serves as a reminder of the importance of informed consent, debriefing, and the ethical treatment of research participants in psychological research. Ethical standards in research have evolved significantly since the time of the experiment, emphasizing the need to prioritize the well-being and rights of participants.

While the Little Albert Experiment contributed to the understanding of classical conditioning, it also serves as a cautionary tale about the ethical boundaries of research and the potential consequences of disregarding the psychological well-being of participants. Modern research ethics prioritize the protection and respect of individuals involved in psychological studies, ensuring that similar experiments would not be conducted today.

The Blue-Eyes/Brown-Eyes Exercise

Historical Context and Significance

The Blue-Eyes/Brown-Eyes Exercise is a landmark social experiment conducted by educator and activist Jane Elliott in the late 1960s. The experiment was born out of the civil rights movement in the United States and sought to address issues of racism, discrimination, and prejudice. Against the backdrop of racial tensions and the struggle for civil rights, Elliott designed the exercise to provide a firsthand experience of the effects of discrimination.

Experiment Design and Outcomes

In the Blue-Eyes/Brown-Eyes Exercise, Elliott divided her third-grade students into two groups based on eye color, designating one group as “superior” (those with blue eyes) and the other as “inferior” (those with brown eyes). Over the course of the exercise, Elliott systematically treated the two groups differently, providing privileges to the superior group while subjecting the inferior group to discrimination and negative stereotypes.

The results of the experiment were profound. Children in the inferior group quickly internalized their assigned role and began to exhibit lower self-esteem, diminished academic performance, and a range of negative emotional responses. On the other hand, those in the superior group displayed increased arrogance and a sense of entitlement.

Elliott conducted the exercise over multiple days, reversing the roles on the second day to provide a taste of both sides of discrimination. The exercise aimed to create empathy and understanding among participants by allowing them to personally experience the emotional and psychological impact of discrimination.

Broader Societal Impact and Implications

The Blue-Eyes/Brown-Eyes Exercise had a significant societal impact. It garnered attention in the media and brought issues of racism and discrimination to the forefront of public consciousness. Elliott’s work challenged prevailing beliefs about the nature of prejudice and discrimination, highlighting the role of societal conditioning in perpetuating such attitudes.

The exercise also emphasized the importance of empathy and perspective-taking in combatting racism and prejudice. By allowing participants to experience discrimination firsthand, Elliott aimed to foster greater empathy and understanding among individuals of different racial backgrounds.

Experimentation in Social Psychology

Experimentation definition.

Experimentation, in its simplest form, is a research method used to investigate the presence or absence of a causal relationship between two variables. This method involves systematically manipulating one variable, known as the independent variable, and then assessing the impact or effect of this manipulation on another variable, referred to as the dependent variable. Through experimentation, researchers aim to discern whether changes in the independent variable cause changes in the dependent variable, providing insights into causal relationships within a given phenomenon or context. This systematic and controlled approach allows for rigorous testing of hypotheses and the establishment of cause-and-effect relationships in scientific inquiry.

Importance and Consequences of Experiments

The importance and consequences of experiments in research are closely tied to their unique ability to establish causal relationships. Here are key features of experiments that facilitate the ability to draw causal conclusions and their implications:

• Establishing Causality: Experiments are highly valuable because they allow researchers to make statements about causality. By systematically manipulating the independent variable and assessing its impact on the dependent variable, researchers can infer that changes in the independent variable cause changes in the dependent variable. This cause-and-effect relationship is central to scientific inquiry and helps uncover the mechanisms underlying various phenomena.
• Directionality of Relationship: Experiments provide a clear temporal sequence where changes in the independent variable precede the assessment of the dependent variable. This temporal order is crucial for determining the directionality of the relationship between variables. In causal relationships, the cause must precede the effect. Experiments ensure that this criterion is met, enabling researchers to infer the causal direction.
• Random Assignment: In experiments, participants are randomly assigned to different experimental groups. Random assignment ensures that each participant has an equal chance of being assigned to any experimental condition, creating equivalent groups at the outset. This eliminates the possibility that pre-existing differences between participants could account for observed differences in the dependent variable. Random assignment strengthens the validity of causal claims by minimizing confounding variables.
• Isolation of Effects: Experiments enable researchers to isolate the effects of the independent variable by controlling all other aspects of the environment. This control ensures that all participants have a similar experience, except for the experimental manipulation. By eliminating extraneous variables, researchers can attribute any observed differences in the dependent variable solely to the independent variable. This isolation of effects enhances the internal validity of the study.

In summary, experiments are a powerful research method that allows for the establishment of causal relationships in scientific inquiry. Their ability to establish causality, ensure temporal precedence, employ random assignment, and isolate the effects of the independent variable makes experiments a cornerstone of empirical research. Researchers must adhere to these principles to draw valid and reliable conclusions about the causal relationships between variables, advancing our understanding of various phenomena in social psychology and other fields.

Some scholars have questioned the utility of experimentation, noting that the experiments which researchers design sometimes do not resemble the circumstances that people encounter in their everyday lives. However, experimentation is the only research method that allows one to definitively establish the existence of a causal relationship between two or more variables.

References:

• Goodwin, C. J. (2003). Research methods in psychology: Methods and design. New York: Wiley.
• Pelham, B. W. (1999). Conducting research in psychology: Measuring the weight of smoke. Pacific Grove,CA: Brooks/Cole.

• General Categories
• Mental Health
• IQ and Intelligence
• Bipolar Disorder

Social Psychology Experiments: Groundbreaking Studies That Shaped Our Understanding of Human Behavior

From obedience to conformity, the fascinating world of social psychology experiments has unveiled the hidden forces that shape our thoughts, feelings, and behaviors in ways we never imagined possible. These groundbreaking studies have peeled back the layers of human interaction, revealing the intricate web of social influences that guide our decisions, often without our conscious awareness.

Social psychology, the scientific study of how people’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are influenced by the actual, imagined, or implied presence of others, has been a cornerstone of psychological research for over a century. It’s a field that has given us profound insights into the human condition, challenging our assumptions about free will and individual autonomy.

The history of social psychology experiments is as colorful as it is controversial. From the early 20th century to the present day, researchers have devised ingenious ways to probe the depths of human social behavior. These experiments have not only shaped our understanding of how we interact with one another but have also had far-reaching implications for fields as diverse as education, marketing, and public policy.

The Classics: Experiments That Shook the Foundations of Psychology

Let’s dive into some of the most influential social psychology experiments that have left an indelible mark on the field. These studies, while sometimes ethically questionable by today’s standards, have provided invaluable insights into human nature.

The Stanford Prison Experiment, conducted by Philip Zimbardo in 1971, is perhaps one of the most infamous studies in the history of psychology. Zimbardo transformed the basement of Stanford University into a mock prison, randomly assigning students to roles as prisoners or guards. The experiment, intended to last two weeks, was terminated after just six days due to the alarming psychological effects on participants.

The Zimbardo Effect in Psychology: Exploring the Power of Situational Influences demonstrated how easily people can slip into roles and how powerful situational forces can be in shaping behavior. The guards became increasingly authoritarian and abusive, while the prisoners became passive and depressed. This study raised important questions about the nature of evil and the potential for ordinary people to commit extraordinary acts of cruelty under certain circumstances.

Moving from prisons to laboratories, we encounter Stanley Milgram’s Obedience Experiments: Redefining Social Psychology . Conducted in the wake of World War II, Milgram sought to understand how ordinary people could commit atrocities under orders. His experiments involved participants being instructed to administer increasingly powerful electric shocks to a person in another room (who was actually an actor pretending to be in pain).

The results were shocking (pun intended). A staggering 65% of participants continued to administer shocks up to the maximum voltage, despite hearing cries of pain and pleas to stop. Milgram’s work revealed the powerful influence of authority on human behavior and sparked intense debate about the ethics of psychological research.

But what about the influence of our peers? Enter Solomon Asch’s Conformity Experiments: Redefining Social Psychology . Asch demonstrated that people would often conform to the majority opinion, even when it was clearly incorrect. In his famous line judgment task, participants would often agree with the group’s obviously wrong answer rather than trust their own eyes.

The Asch Conformity Experiments: Revolutionizing Social Psychology showed that social pressure can lead people to deny the evidence of their own senses. This finding has profound implications for understanding phenomena like groupthink and the spread of misinformation.

Contemporary Twists: Modern Experiments Pushing Boundaries

While the classic experiments laid the groundwork, contemporary researchers continue to push the boundaries of our understanding of social behavior. Let’s explore some more recent experiments that have captured the public imagination.

The Invisible Gorilla Experiment, conducted by Christopher Chabris and Daniel Simons in 1999, demonstrated the phenomenon of inattentional blindness. Participants were asked to watch a video of people passing a basketball and count the number of passes. Astonishingly, about half of the viewers failed to notice a person in a gorilla suit walking through the scene, even though it was in full view for several seconds.

This experiment highlights how our attention can be so focused on one task that we completely miss other, seemingly obvious events. It’s a sobering reminder of the limitations of our perception and has important implications for fields like eyewitness testimony and road safety.

The Marshmallow Test, while not strictly a social psychology experiment, has important social implications. In this study, children were offered a choice between one small reward (like a marshmallow) immediately, or two small rewards if they waited for a short period. The ability to delay gratification in childhood was found to correlate with better life outcomes in adulthood.

This experiment sparked a wealth of research into self-control, decision-making, and the social factors that influence our ability to resist temptation. It’s a powerful illustration of how early experiences can shape long-term behavior.

The Robbers Cave Experiment, conducted by Muzafer Sherif in the 1950s, is a fascinating study of intergroup conflict and cooperation. Sherif took two groups of 11-year-old boys to a summer camp and observed how quickly they formed in-groups and out-groups, complete with hostility towards the “other” group. However, when faced with challenges that required cooperation between the groups, the boys quickly overcame their differences.

This experiment provides valuable insights into how group identities form and how conflict can be resolved through shared goals. It’s particularly relevant in our increasingly polarized world.

Real-World Impact: Social Psychology Case Studies

While controlled experiments provide valuable insights, real-world case studies often bring social psychology principles into sharp focus. Let’s examine some notable cases that have shaped our understanding of human behavior.

The Kitty Genovese Case: A Landmark in Bystander Effect Psychology is a prime example. In 1964, Kitty Genovese was murdered in New York City, allegedly in view of 38 witnesses who did nothing to help. While later investigations have cast doubt on some details of the case, it sparked extensive research into the bystander effect – the phenomenon where individuals are less likely to offer help in an emergency when other people are present.

This case study led to the development of important theories about diffusion of responsibility and has had practical implications for how emergency situations are handled.

The Stanford Duck Syndrome is a more recent phenomenon observed among college students. It refers to the tendency of students to appear calm and composed on the surface (like a duck gliding smoothly on water) while frantically paddling beneath the surface to keep up with academic and social pressures.

This case study highlights the power of social comparison and the pressure to conform to perceived norms. It has important implications for mental health and well-being in high-pressure environments.

The Halo Effect, first described by Edward Thorndike, is a cognitive bias where our overall impression of a person influences how we feel and think about their character. This effect has been observed in various contexts, from politics to media.

For instance, attractive people are often perceived as more intelligent, kind, and competent, even in the absence of any evidence. This bias can have significant implications in areas like hiring decisions, political campaigns, and even judicial proceedings.

Social media and the Fear of Missing Out (FOMO) represent a modern case study in social psychology. The constant connectivity provided by social media platforms has led to increased anxiety and depression in some users, driven by the fear of missing out on social experiences or opportunities.

This phenomenon illustrates how technology can amplify existing social psychological processes, creating new challenges for mental health and well-being in the digital age.

The Ethics of Exploration: Navigating the Moral Maze

As we delve into these fascinating experiments and case studies, it’s crucial to address the elephant in the room: ethics. Many of the classic social psychology experiments we’ve discussed would be considered unethical by today’s standards.

Informed consent and deception are two key issues. In many early experiments, participants were not fully informed about the nature of the study or were actively deceived. The Milgram obedience experiments, for instance, relied heavily on deception, leading participants to believe they were causing real harm to others.

Psychological harm is another significant concern. The Stanford Prison Experiment, while yielding valuable insights, caused considerable distress to its participants. Many experienced lasting psychological effects from their brief time in the mock prison.

The importance of thorough debriefing has become increasingly recognized. Participants need to be fully informed about the true nature of the experiment and any deception involved. They should also be provided with resources for further support if needed.

In recent years, psychology has faced a replication crisis, with many classic studies failing to produce the same results when repeated. This has led to increased scrutiny of research methods and a push for more rigorous, transparent practices.

Modern ethical guidelines for social psychology research are much stricter than in the past. Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) now carefully scrutinize proposed studies to ensure they meet ethical standards. While this can sometimes limit the types of experiments that can be conducted, it’s a necessary safeguard to protect participants and maintain public trust in psychological research.

From Lab to Life: Applying Social Psychology Insights

The insights gained from social psychology experiments have found applications in numerous fields, demonstrating the practical value of this research.

In marketing and consumer behavior, understanding social influence and decision-making processes has revolutionized how products are advertised and sold. The concept of social proof, for instance, is widely used in marketing strategies, leveraging our tendency to look to others for guidance on how to behave.

Public health campaigns have benefited enormously from social psychology research. Understanding how social norms influence behavior has led to more effective interventions for issues like smoking cessation and promoting healthy eating habits.

In education, insights from social psychology have shaped learning strategies and classroom dynamics. The concept of growth mindset, for example, has been widely adopted in educational settings to promote resilience and learning.

Workplace dynamics and organizational behavior have also been transformed by social psychology research. Understanding phenomena like groupthink and the bystander effect has led to better decision-making processes and more effective team structures in many organizations.

The Road Ahead: Future Directions in Social Psychology

As we look to the future, social psychology continues to evolve and adapt to new challenges. The rise of social media and online interactions presents a wealth of new research opportunities. How do virtual interactions differ from face-to-face encounters? How does online anonymity affect behavior?

The Minimal Group Paradigm: Unraveling the Psychology of Social Categorization continues to be a powerful tool for understanding intergroup dynamics. As our world becomes increasingly interconnected, yet paradoxically more divided, this research takes on new importance.

Advances in neuroscience and brain imaging techniques are opening up new avenues for understanding the neural basis of social behavior. This interdisciplinary approach, sometimes called social neuroscience, promises to provide a more complete picture of how our brains process social information.

Climate change and environmental behavior represent another frontier for social psychology research. How can we leverage our understanding of social influence to promote more sustainable behaviors?

As we’ve seen, the field of social psychology is as dynamic and complex as the human behavior it seeks to understand. From the groundbreaking work of pioneers like Solomon Asch’s Contributions to Psychology: Pioneering Social Conformity Research and Philip Zimbardo’s Contributions to Psychology: Shaping Our Understanding of Human Behavior , to contemporary research on digital behavior and environmental psychology, this field continues to illuminate the hidden forces that shape our social world.

The experiments and case studies we’ve explored have shown us that human behavior is far more malleable and context-dependent than we might like to believe. They’ve challenged our notions of free will and individual autonomy, revealing the powerful influence of social situations on our thoughts, feelings, and actions.

Yet, far from being deterministic, this research empowers us. By understanding the social forces that shape us, we can learn to harness them for positive change. We can design better institutions, create more effective interventions, and perhaps even become more compassionate and understanding individuals.

As we face the complex challenges of the 21st century, from climate change to political polarization, the insights of social psychology will be more crucial than ever. By continuing to probe the depths of human social behavior, we can hope to create a world that brings out the best in our social nature, rather than falling prey to its pitfalls.

The journey of discovery in social psychology is far from over. Each new study, each new insight, brings us closer to understanding the intricate dance of individual and society that defines the human experience. And in that understanding lies the potential for a better, more harmonious world.

References:

1. Zimbardo, P. G. (1971). The Stanford Prison Experiment: A Simulation Study of the Psychology of Imprisonment. Stanford University.

2. Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral Study of Obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 371-378.

3. Asch, S. E. (1951). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgments. In H. Guetzkow (Ed.), Groups, leadership and men. Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Press.

4. Simons, D. J., & Chabris, C. F. (1999). Gorillas in our midst: Sustained inattentional blindness for dynamic events. Perception, 28(9), 1059-1074.

5. Mischel, W., Ebbesen, E. B., & Raskoff Zeiss, A. (1972). Cognitive and attentional mechanisms in delay of gratification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 21(2), 204-218.

6. Sherif, M., Harvey, O. J., White, B. J., Hood, W. R., & Sherif, C. W. (1961). Intergroup Conflict and Cooperation: The Robbers Cave Experiment. Norman, OK: University Book Exchange.

7. Manning, R., Levine, M., & Collins, A. (2007). The Kitty Genovese murder and the social psychology of helping: The parable of the 38 witnesses. American Psychologist, 62(6), 555-562.

8. Thorndike, E. L. (1920). A constant error in psychological ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 4(1), 25-29.

9. Przybylski, A. K., Murayama, K., DeHaan, C. R., & Gladwell, V. (2013). Motivational, emotional, and behavioral correlates of fear of missing out. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(4), 1841-1848.

10. Tajfel, H., Billig, M. G., Bundy, R. P., & Flament, C. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1(2), 149-178.

Was this article helpful?

Would you like to add any comments (optional), leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Post Comment

Related Resources

Psychosocial Meaning in Psychology: Exploring the Intersection of Mind and…

Applied Research Psychology: Real-World Examples and Impact

Next Step Psychology: Transforming Lives in Zionsville and Beyond

Richard Anton Psychology: Comprehensive Mental Health Care in Calgary

Psychology Department: Understanding Its Academic Placement and Focus

Group Psychology: Exploring the Dynamics and Theories of Human Collectives

The Need to Belong: Psychological Insights into Human Connection

Psychosocial Psychology: Exploring the Intersection of Mind and Society

Rebellious Child Psychology: Causes, Effects, and Effective Parenting Strategies

Rural Psychology: Exploring Mental Health in Countryside Communities

• Foundations
• Write Paper

Search form

• Experiments
• Anthropology
• Self-Esteem
• Social Anxiety

• Psychology >

Social Psychology Experiments

Social psychology experiments can explain how thoughts, feelings and behaviors are influenced by the presence of others.

This article is a part of the guide:

• Milgram Experiment
• Bobo Doll Experiment
• Stanford Prison Experiment
• Asch Experiment
• Milgram Experiment Ethics

Browse Full Outline

• 1 Social Psychology Experiments
• 2.1 Asch Figure
• 3 Bobo Doll Experiment
• 4 Good Samaritan Experiment
• 5 Stanford Prison Experiment
• 6.1 Milgram Experiment Ethics
• 7 Bystander Apathy
• 8 Sherif’s Robbers Cave
• 9 Social Judgment Experiment
• 10 Halo Effect
• 11 Thought-Rebound
• 12 Ross’ False Consensus Effect
• 13 Interpersonal Bargaining
• 14 Understanding and Belief
• 15 Hawthorne Effect
• 16 Self-Deception
• 17 Confirmation Bias
• 18 Overjustification Effect
• 19 Choice Blindness
• 20.1 Cognitive Dissonance
• 21.1 Social Group Prejudice
• 21.2 Intergroup Discrimination
• 21.3 Selective Group Perception

Typically social psychology studies investigate how someone's behavior influences a groups behavior or internal states, such as attitude or self-concept.

Obedience to Authority

"I was only following orders" Legal defence by a Nazi leader at the Nuremberg trial following World War II

The aftermath of World War 2 made scientists investigate what to made people "follow orders" even though the orders were horrible. The Stanley Milgram Experiment showed that also non-nazi populations would follow orders to harm other persons. It was not a German phenomenon as many thought.

Milgram's Lost Letter Experiment

Classic social psychology experiments are widely used to expose the key elements of aggressive behavior, prejudice and stereotyping. Social group prejudice is manifested in people's unfavorable attitudes towards a particular social group. Stanley Milgram's Lost Letter Experiment further explains this.

Obedience to a Role - Dehumanization

The Abu Ghraib prison-episode was yet another example on the power of predefined roles. The Stanford Prison Experiment by Philip Zimbardo, demonstrated the powerful effect our perception of expectations in roles have.

Solomon Asch wanted to test how much people are influenced by others opinions in the Asch Conformity Experiment .

Observational Role Learning

Behaviorists ruled psychology for a long time. They focused on how individuals learn by trying and failing. Albert Bandura thought that humans are much more than "learning machines". He thought that we learn from role models, initiating the (bandura) social cognitive theory. It all started with the Bobo Doll Experiment .

Helping Behavior - Good Samaritan

Knowing the story of the Good Samaritan makes you wonder what made the Samaritan help the stranger, and why did he not get help from the priest or the Levite? The Good Samaritan Experiment explores causes of not showing helping behavior or altruism.

Cognitive Dissonance Experiment

The Cognitive Dissonance Experiment by Leon Festinger assumes that people hold many different cognitions about their world and tests what happens when the cognitions do not fit. See also the more in depth article about the Cognitive Dissonance Experiment .

Bystander Effect

The Bystander Apathy Experiment was inspirated and motivation to conduct this experiment from the highly publicised murder of Kitty Genovese in the same year.

Groups and Influence On Opinion

Sherif's classic social psychology experiment named Robbers Cave Experiment dealt with in-group relations, out-group relations and intergroup relations.

The Social Judgment Experiment was designed to explore the internal processes of an individual's judgment and intergroup discrimination , how little it takes for people to form into groups, and the degree to which people within a group tend to favour the in-group and discriminate the out-group.

Halo Effect

The Halo Effect was demonstrated by Nisbett and Wilson's experiment. It fits the situation of Hollywood celebrities where people readily assume that since these people are physically attractive, it also follows that they are intelligent, friendly, and display good judgment as well. This also greatly applies to other well-known people such as politicians.

Wegner's Dream Rebound Experiment

According to studies, thoughts suppressed may resurface or manifest themselves in the future in the form of dreams. Psychologist Daniel M. Wegner proves this in his experiment on effects of thought suppression .

False Consensus

Everyone's got their own biases in each and every occasion, even when estimating other people behaviors and the respective causes. One of these is called the false consensus bias. Psychologist Professor Lee Ross conducted studies on setting out to show how false consensus effect operates.

Interpersonal Bargaining

Bargaining is one of the many activities we usually engage in without even realizing it. The Moran Deutsch and Robert Krauss Experiment investigated two central factors in bargaining, namely how we communicate with each other and the use of threats.

Understand and Belief

Daniel Gilbert together with his colleagues put to test both Rene Descartes' and Baruch Spinoza's beliefs on whether belief is automatic or is a separate process that follows understanding. This argument has long been standing for at least 400 years before it was finally settled.

Self-Deception

People lie all the time even to themselves and surprisingly, it does work! This is the finding of the Quattrone and Tversky Experiment that was published in the Journal of Personality and Psychology.

Overjustification Effect

The overjustification effect happens when an external incentive like a reward, decreases a person's intrinsic motivation to perform a particular task. Lepper, Greene and Nisbett confirmed this in their field experiment in a nursery school.

Chameleon Effect

Also called unintentional mirroring, the chameleon effect usually applies to people who are getting along so well, each tend to mimic each other's body posture, hand gestures, speaking accents, among others. This was confirmed by the Chartrand and Bargh experiments.

Confirmation Bias

Confirmation bias is also known as selective collection of evidence. It is considered as an effect of information processing where people behaves to as to make their expectations come true. People tend to favor information that confirms their preconceptions or hypotheses independently of the information's truthness or falsity.

Choice Blindness

Choice blindness refers to ways in which people are blind to their own choices and preferences. Lars Hall and Peter Johansson further explain this phenomenon in their study.

Stereotypes

The Clark Doll Test illustrates the ill effects of stereotyping and racial segregation in America. It illustrated the damage caused by systematic segregation and racism on children's self-perception at the young age of five.

Selective Group Perception

In selective group perception, people tend to actively filter information they think is irrelevant. This effect is demonstrated in Hastorf and Cantril's Case Study: They Saw a Game .

Changing Behaviour When Being Studied

The Hawthorne Effect is the process where human subjects of an experiment change their behavior, simply because they are being studied. This is one of the hardest inbuilt biases to eliminate or factor into the design.

• Psychology 101
• Flags and Countries
• Capitals and Countries

Oskar Blakstad (Oct 10, 2008). Social Psychology Experiments. Retrieved Dec 15, 2024 from Explorable.com: https://explorable.com/social-psychology-experiments

You Are Allowed To Copy The Text

The text in this article is licensed under the Creative Commons-License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) .

This means you're free to copy, share and adapt any parts (or all) of the text in the article, as long as you give appropriate credit and provide a link/reference to this page.

That is it. You don't need our permission to copy the article; just include a link/reference back to this page. You can use it freely (with some kind of link), and we're also okay with people reprinting in publications like books, blogs, newsletters, course-material, papers, wikipedia and presentations (with clear attribution).

Want to stay up to date? Follow us!

Save this course for later.

Don't have time for it all now? No problem, save it as a course and come back to it later.

Footer bottom

• Privacy Policy

• Subscribe to our RSS Feed
• Like us on Facebook
• Follow us on Twitter

Bandura’s Bobo Doll Experiment on Social Learning

Saul McLeod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul McLeod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

During the 1960s, Albert Bandura conducted a series of experiments on observational learning , collectively known as the Bobo doll experiments. Two of the experiments are described below:

Bandura (1961) conducted a controlled experiment study to investigate if social behaviors (i.e., aggression) can be acquired by observation and imitation.

Bandura, Ross, and Ross (1961) tested 36 boys and 36 girls from the Stanford University Nursery School aged between 3 to 6 years old.

The researchers pre-tested the children for how aggressive they were by observing the children in the nursery and judged their aggressive behavior on four 5-point rating scales.

It was then possible to match the children in each group so that they had similar levels of aggression in their everyday behavior. The experiment is, therefore, an example of a matched pairs design .

To test the inter-rater reliability of the observers, 51 of the children were rated by two observers independently, and their ratings were compared. These ratings showed a very high-reliability correlation (r = 0.89), which suggested that the observers had a good agreement about the behavior of the children.

A lab experiment was used, in which the independent variable (the type of model) was manipulated in three conditions:

• Aggressive model is shown to 24 children
• Non-aggressive model is shown to 24 children
• No model is shown (control condition) – 24 children

Stage 1: Modeling

In the experimental conditions, children were individually shown into a room containing toys and played with some potato prints and pictures in a corner for 10 minutes while either:

• 24 children (12 boys and 12 girls) watched a male or female model behaving aggressively towards a toy called a “Bobo doll”. The adults attacked the Bobo doll in a distinctive manner – they used a hammer in some cases, and in others threw the doll in the air and shouted “Pow, Boom.”
• Another 24 children (12 boys and 12 girls) were exposed to a non-aggressive model who played in a quiet and subdued manner for 10 minutes (playing with a tinker toy set and ignoring the bobo-doll).
• The final 24 children (12 boys and 12 girls) were used as a control group and not exposed to any model at all.

Stage 2: Aggression Arousal

All the children (including the control group) were subjected to “mild aggression arousal.” Each child was (separately) taken to a room with relatively attractive toys.

As soon as the child started to play with the toys, the experimenter told the child that these were the experimenter’s very best toys and she had decided to reserve them for the other children.

Stage 3: Test for Delayed Imitation

• The next room contained some aggressive toys and some non-aggressive toys. The non-aggressive toys included a tea set, crayons, three bears and plastic farm animals. The aggressive toys included a mallet and peg board, dart guns, and a 3 foot Bobo doll.
• The child was in the room for 20 minutes, and their behavior was observed and rated though a one-way mirror. Observations were made at 5-second intervals, therefore, giving 240 response units for each child.
• Other behaviors that didn’t imitate that of the model were also recorded e.g., punching the Bobo doll on the nose.
• Children who observed the aggressive model made far more imitative aggressive responses than those who were in the non-aggressive or control groups.
• There was more partial and non-imitative aggression among those children who had observed aggressive behavior, although the difference for non-imitative aggression was small.
• The girls in the aggressive model condition also showed more physically aggressive responses if the model was male, but more verbally aggressive responses if the model was female. However, the exception to this general pattern was the observation of how often they punched Bobo, and in this case the effects of gender were reversed.
• Boys were more likely to imitate same-sex models than girls. The evidence for girls imitating same-sex models is not strong.
• Boys imitated more physically aggressive acts than girls. There was little difference in verbal aggression between boys and girls.

Bobo doll experiment demonstrated that children are able to learn social behavior such as aggression through the process of observation learning, through watching the behavior of another person. The findings support Bandura’s (1977) Social Learning Theory .

This study has important implications for the effects of media violence on children.

There are three main advantages of the experimental method .

• Experiments are the only means by which cause and effect can be established. Thus, it could be demonstrated that the model did have an effect on the child’s subsequent behavior because all variables other than the independent variable are controlled.
• It allows for precise control of variables. Many variables were controlled, such as the gender of the model, the time the children observed the model, the behavior of the model, and so on.
• Experiments can be replicated. Standardized procedures and instructions were used, allowing for replicability. In fact, the study has been replicated with slight changes, such as using video, and similar results were found (Bandura, 1963).

Limitations of the procedure include:

• Many psychologists are very critical of laboratory studies of imitation – in particular, because they tend to have low ecological validity. The situation involves the child and an adult model, which is a very limited social situation and there is no interaction between the child and the model at any point; certainly the child has no chance to influence the model in any way.
• Also, the model and the child are strangers. This, of course, is quite unlike “normal” modeling, which often takes place within the family.
• Cumberbatch (1990) found that children who had not played with a Bobo Doll before were five times as likely to imitate the aggressive behavior than those who were familiar with it; he claims that the novelty value of the doll makes it more likely that children will imitate the behavior.
• A further criticism of the study is that the demonstrations are measured almost immediately. With such snapshot studies, we cannot discover if such a single exposure can have long-term effects.
• It is possible to argue that the bobo doll experiment was unethical. For example, there is the problem of whether or not the children suffered any long-term consequences as a result of the study. Although it is unlikely, we can never be certain.

Vicarious Reinforcement Bobo Doll Study

An observer’s behavior can also be affected by the positive or negative consequences of a model’s behavior.

So we not only watch what people do, but we watch what happens when they do things. This is known as vicarious reinforcement. We are more likely to imitate behavior that is rewarded and refrain from behavior that is punished.

Bandura (1965) used a similar experimental set up to the one outlined above to test vicarious reinforcement. The experiment had different consequences for the model’s aggression to the three groups of children.

One group saw the model’s aggression being rewarded (being given sweets and a drink for a “championship performance,” another group saw the model being punished for the aggression (scolded), and the third group saw no specific consequences (control condition).

When allowed to enter the playroom, children in the reward and control conditions imitated more aggressive actions of the model than did the children in the punishment condition.

The children in the model punished group had learned the aggression by observational learning, but did not imitate it because they expected negative consequences.

Reinforcement gained by watching another person is known as vicarious reinforcement.

Bandura, A. (1965). Influence of models” reinforcement contingencies on the acquisition of imitative responses . Journal of personality and social psychology, 1(6) , 589.

Bandura, A., Ross, D. & Ross, S.A. (1961). Transmission of aggression through imitation of aggressive models .  Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology , 63, 575-82.

Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. (1963). Imitation of film-mediated aggressive models . The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology , 66(1), 3.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Further Information

• Bandura’s Social Learning Theory
• Bobo Doll Study Summary
• BBC Radio 4 Programme: The Bobo Doll
• Bobo Doll Summary PowerPoint