social experiment is an

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 Schacter 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
• Sweepstakes
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2024 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

The Most Famous Social Psychology Experiments Ever Performed

Social experiments often seek to answer questions about how people behave in groups or how the presence of others impacts individual behavior. Over the years, social psychologists have explored these questions by conducting experiments .

The results of some of the most famous social psychology experiments remain relevant (and often quite controversial) today. Such experiments give us valuable information about human behavior and how group influence can impact our actions in social situations.

At a Glance

Some of the most famous social psychology experiments include Asch's conformity experiments, Bandura's Bobo doll experiments, the Stanford prison experiment, and Milgram's obedience experiments. Some of these studies are quite controversial for various reasons, including how they were conducted, serious ethical concerns, and what their results suggested.

The Asch Conformity Experiments

What do you do when you know you're right but the rest of the group disagrees with you? Do you bow to group pressure?

In a series of famous experiments conducted during the 1950s, psychologist Solomon Asch demonstrated that people would give the wrong answer on a test to fit in with the rest of the group.

In Asch's famous conformity experiments , people were shown a line and then asked to select a line of a matching length from a group of three. Asch also placed confederates in the group who would intentionally choose the wrong lines.

The results revealed that when other people picked the wrong line, participants were likely to conform and give the same answers as the rest of the group.

What the Results Revealed

While we might like to believe that we would resist group pressure (especially when we know the group is wrong), Asch's results revealed that people are surprisingly susceptible to conformity .

Not only did Asch's experiment teach us a great deal about the power of conformity, but it also inspired a whole host of additional research on how people conform and obey, including Milgram's infamous obedience experiments.

The Bobo Doll Experiment

Does watching violence on television cause children to behave more aggressively? In a series of experiments conducted during the early 1960s, psychologist Albert Bandura set out to investigate the impact of observed aggression on children's behavior.

In his Bobo doll experiments , children would watch an adult interacting with a Bobo doll. In one condition, the adult model behaved passively toward the doll, but in another, the adult would kick, punch, strike, and yell at the doll.

The results revealed that children who watched the adult model behave violently toward the doll were likelier to imitate the aggressive behavior later on.​

The Impact of Bandura's Social Psychology Experiment

The debate over the degree to which violence on television, movies, gaming, and other media influences children's behavior continues to rage on today, so it perhaps comes as no surprise that Bandura's findings are still so relevant.

The experiment has also helped inspire hundreds of additional studies exploring the impacts of observed aggression and violence.

The Stanford Prison Experiment

During the early 1970s, Philip Zimbardo set up a fake prison in the basement of the Stanford Psychology Department, recruited participants to play prisoners and guards, and played the role of the prison warden.

The experiment was designed to look at the effect that a prison environment would have on behavior, but it quickly became one of the most famous and controversial experiments of all time.

Results of the Stanford Prison Experiment

The Stanford prison experiment was initially slated to last a full two weeks. It ended after just six days. Why? Because the participants became so enmeshed in their assumed roles, the guards became almost sadistically abusive, and the prisoners became anxious, depressed, and emotionally disturbed.

While the Stanford prison experiment was designed to look at prison behavior, it has since become an emblem of how powerfully people are influenced by situations.  

Ethical Concerns

Part of the notoriety stems from the study's treatment of the participants. The subjects were placed in a situation that created considerable psychological distress. So much so that the study had to be halted less than halfway through the experiment.

The study has long been upheld as an example of how people yield to the situation, but critics have suggested that the participants' behavior may have been unduly influenced by Zimbardo himself in his capacity as the mock prison's "warden."  

Recent Criticisms

The Stanford prison experiment has long been controversial due to the serious ethical concerns of the research, but more recent evidence casts serious doubts on the study's scientific merits.

An examination of study records indicates participants faked their behavior to either get out of the experiment or "help" prove the researcher's hypothesis. The experimenters also appear to have encouraged certain behaviors to help foster more abusive behavior.

The Milgram Experiments

Following the trial of Adolph Eichmann for war crimes committed during World War II, psychologist Stanley Milgram wanted to better understand why people obey. "Could it be that Eichmann and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders? Could we call them all accomplices?" Milgram wondered.

The results of Milgram's controversial obedience experiments were astonishing and continue to be both thought-provoking and controversial today.

What the Social Psychology Experiment Involved

The study involved ordering participants to deliver increasingly painful shocks to another person. While the victim was simply a confederate pretending to be injured, the participants fully believed that they were giving electrical shocks to the other person.

Even when the victim was protesting or complaining of a heart condition, 65% of the participants continued to deliver painful, possibly fatal shocks on the experimenter's orders.

Obviously, no one wants to believe that they are capable of inflicting pain or torture on another human being simply on the orders of an authority figure. The results of the obedience experiments are disturbing because they reveal that people are much more obedient than they may believe.

Controversy and Recent Criticisms

The study is also controversial because it suffers from ethical concerns, primarily the psychological distress it created for the participants. More recent findings suggest that other problems question the study's findings.

Some participants were coerced into continuing against their wishes. Many participants appeared to have guessed that the learner was faking their responses, and other variations showed that many participants refused to continue the shocks.

What This Means For You

There are many interesting and famous social psychology experiments that can reveal a lot about our understanding of social behavior and influence. However, it is important to be aware of the controversies, limitations, and criticisms of these studies. More recent research may reflect differing results. In some cases, the re-evaluation of classic studies has revealed serious ethical and methodological flaws that call the results into question.

Jeon, HL.  The environmental factor within the Solomon Asch Line Test .  International Journal of Social Science and Humanity.  2014;4(4):264-268. doi:10.7763/IJSSH.2014.V4.360 

Bandura and Bobo . Association for Psychological Science.

Zimbardo, G. The Stanford Prison Experiment: a simulation study on the psychology of imprisonment .

Le Texier T.  Debunking the Stanford Prison Experiment.   Am Psychol.  2019;74(7):823-839. doi:10.1037/amp0000401

Blum B.  The lifespan of a lie .  Medium .

Baker PC. Electric Schlock: Did Stanley Milgram's famous obedience experiments prove anything? Pacific Standard .

Perry G.  Deception and illusion in Milgram's accounts of the obedience experiments .  Theory Appl Ethics . 2013;2(2):79-92.

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

• 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.

• 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 Aug 30, 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

8 Effective Social Psychology Experiments & Activities For High School Students

In school, social interaction plays a crucial role and forms the core of one’s academic life. Have you ever been curious about what others are thinking? Have you ever found yourself wondering about the thoughts and opinions of others? This is something that crosses everyone’s mind. The study of social psychology gives you a peek into some of these interesting stances. 

Social psychology is a field of psychology that investigates how the social environment shapes people’s thoughts, beliefs, and behavior. By studying social psychology, one can gain a deeper understanding of people’s actions and the consequences they have. Furthermore, engaging in practical experiments and activities can make this subject even more fascinating. 

In this post, you will find such engaging specific activities that will offer students valuable hands-on experience in the field of social psychology, allowing them to gain practical knowledge and insights into this fascinating subject matter.

Social psychology experiments and activities for high school students 

Here are a few interesting experiments and activities for high school students to learn about social psychology : 

1. Bystander effect simulation

The bystander effect [ 1 ] is a social psychology phenomenon that studies how an individual is unlikely to help in an urgent situation if surrounded by other people. Students can conduct experiments to study this effect in controlled settings. They can choose a social setting and select one person to pretend to need help, such as someone with a false injury struggling to cross the road or gather scattered items. 

The remaining students can observe their behavior while amongst the public.  This experiment aims to display the phenomenon called “diffusion of responsibility”. It will also help one understand the importance of helping people, acts of kindness , and empathetic understanding. Understanding the Bystander effect helps one understand the concept of social initiation, and can further be useful when a real social situation needs their intervention. 

2. Conformity experiment 

People tend to change their beliefs to match what they think is normal, which is called conformity bias. An experiment can be done to test this by asking a group of students to guess the length of a rod from three choices (25 cm, 30 cm, and 40 cm), with 25 cm being the correct answer. 

Some students might be told to give the wrong answer (like 40 cm) and act like they are sure it’s right, giving confident explanations for the same. This creates a situation of peer pressure and social conformity, making the students want to fit in and therefore agree with the group.

Other students might start to do the same thing as well to fit in with their friends. This experiment shows how conformity bias works. It also teaches students about the effects of peer pressure and social conformity, and how acting like others can affect things like confidence.

3. The marshmallow test 

The marshmallow test is a study about delaying pleasure, called delayed gratification. This happens when something else gets in the way of enjoying something right away. In an experiment such as this, immediate gratification can be understood as being given something delicious and eating it immediately. High school students can perform this experiment on preschoolers who are between three and five years old. 

The students will randomly select a few children and observe them individually. Each child will be given one marshmallow at a time and will be told that they will be given one more marshmallow if they resist eating this one until the observer returns. This is the process of delayed gratification [ 2 ]

The students would then observe and note the number of kids who attempted and succeeded in doing the same, and see if it agrees with their hypothesis. This test can help the students learn the importance of delayed gratification and how one can apply it to build virtues like discipline and organization.

4. Group polarization experiments 

The society contributes tremendously to forming one’s beliefs, prejudices, stereotypes, and notions. This particular experiment focuses on how societal agreements and discussions can strengthen already existing beliefs, lead them to extremities, and increase the rigidity of one’s thoughts. 

These experiments can take place both in classrooms and among peer groups. The first step is for students to express their opinions on a specific societal topic, such as gender norms. Then, the teacher can split the students into pairs, each holding a different viewpoint. 

The pairs will engage in discussions about the topic, sharing their personal opinions and biases. This increases their insight into the topic and open to more agreeable or disagreeable opinions. As the next step, the students will be asked their personal stance on the same topics again after the discussion. 

As per the hypothesis, their opinions will be more diversely spread and will have an increased intensity. This will help them notice any changes in the level of emphasis, aggressiveness, and rigidity of their opinions before and after the discussion. This experiment helps one realize the social effect on the rigidity of one’s thought formation and how social construct plays a role in molding one’s beliefs and values to polarized extremities. 

5. Mirror neurons 

The brain has a fascinating component called mirror neurons. Just like mirror images,  these are activated by subconsciously copying or adapting to performing any action or feeling a certain emotion, because others are doing so.

This explains why laughter can be contagious, or when your friend feels sad without any apparent reason, you begin feeling down in the dumps too. This indicates how we have the natural ability to empathize and feel others’ emotions only by imagining us being in their shoes, or even by being in the same environment as they are. Conducting experiments and activities, such as imitation, can help us understand the workings of mirror neurons. 

In a classroom or peer group setting, students can choose to perform a skit based on a story they know, but they must play a character they don’t particularly like. For instance, a student who dislikes Draco Malfoy from the Harry Potter series may be assigned to play that character. After the skit, the students can discuss the character traits of the parts they played and the qualities they possess.

In the end, it will be seen that the students have developed a sense of understanding and empathy towards the character that they previously disliked, by being in the same character for some time. Through these exercises, the students can learn how mirror neurons foster empathy, increase understanding, and make it easier to take on different perspectives. 

6. Nonverbal cues and communication

Societal construct is built in a way that puts so much emphasis on communication skills but ironically conducts it more in nonverbal ways. For high school students, it is not only important for them to be aware of its importance, but to learn it through the perspective of social psychology. This can be manifested as a learning-based class activity similar to the game of dumb charades. 

In this activity, the teacher or a peer will split the students into two teams. Then, one member from each team will be chosen to stand in front of the class and be given a list of emotions to express through facial expressions. Starting with simple emotions like happiness and sadness, they will gradually move on to more complex emotions like anticipation, confusion, grief, and sarcasm. 

The other team members will have to guess the nonverbal cues being portrayed by their teammates and will earn five points for every correct guess. By working together, the class can gain a better understanding of nonverbal communication and its significant impact on even the smallest interactions. This fosters collaborative engagement and teamwork, along with increasing understanding and receptive levels. 

7. Foot-in-the-door experiment

The foot-in-the-door technique is derived from the English idiom that means getting an initial start to something. This technique is studied in social psychology as a strategy used usually in the corporate or marketing sector. This social phenomenon can be observed in the form of organizing an activity like role play . 

The class will be split into pairs, and each pair will act out a marketing scenario. For example, they might choose to sell a skincare product. In the scenario, the salesperson will start by offering a free sample product and explaining its qualities. This small request is more likely to be accepted by the customer as it does not require much attention or effort, or any form of financial demand. 

Then, the salesperson will slowly follow up by convincing the customer to buy the product after trying it and agreeing with the description. In a social situation like this, it builds pressure on the customer to maintain the same agreeable behavior as before, which is why the customer will be more likely to buy the product. This experiment helps the student learn about social conformity and how society plays a role in shaping one’s moral values, categorizing their behavior as acceptable and non-acceptable.

8. Door-in-the-face experiment

This technique is the exact opposite of foot-in-the-door activity. In the case of a marketing strategy, it is used very smartly. High school students can conduct a social experiment with the permission and supervision of their teacher or faculty member.

The experiment involves inviting someone to a fundraiser organized by their school or institution. The students will start by making an unreasonable request, such as asking a random person to donate a thousand dollars to the charitable initiative of the fundraiser. 

The person is likely to deny the request, but that denial can make the person feel guilty for responding negatively. The students will then follow up with a small request to attend the fundraiser event. This is now possible and easy for the person to agree to, and also calms down the guilt of denying the earlier request by forming an acceptable image of an agreeable person.

This experiment teaches students about the importance of social acceptability in building self-image and confidence. It also lets them get an insight into how society can play a role in both building their values and morals, while at the same time, inducing feelings of unease and guilt. 

Wrapping it up

Already an intriguing subject, social psychology can be made even more fun by incorporating practical experiments and activities. The experiments done in social psychology are for observational and comprehensive purposes. 

They aim to better one’s understanding of social settings and their impact on an individual’s mind, together forming a cohesive psycho-social educational experience. Additionally, students can also engage in psychology games and activities for more clarity on the subject matter. These activities will help you dive deeper into how society operates, and also get to look at it from an observer’s perspective, giving you a clear, unbiased, and non-judgmental view of social occurrences and phenomena. 

• James M. Hudson, & Amy Bruckman. (2004). The Bystander Effect: A Lens for understanding patterns of participation.  The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(2), 165–195.
• Mischel Walter; Ebbesen, Ebbe B. (1970). “Attention in delay of gratification”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology . 16 (2): 329–337.

Sananda Bhattacharya, Chief Editor of TheHighSchooler, is dedicated to enhancing operations and growth. With degrees in Literature and Asian Studies from Presidency University, Kolkata, she leverages her educational and innovative background to shape TheHighSchooler into a pivotal resource hub. Providing valuable insights, practical activities, and guidance on school life, graduation, scholarships, and more, Sananda’s leadership enriches the journey of high school students.

Explore a plethora of invaluable resources and insights tailored for high schoolers at TheHighSchooler, under the guidance of Sananda Bhattacharya’s expertise. You can follow her on Linkedin

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

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

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.

Stanley Milgram Shock Experiment

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.

On This Page:

Stanley Milgram, a psychologist at Yale University, carried out one of the most famous studies of obedience in psychology.

He conducted an experiment focusing on the conflict between obedience to authority and personal conscience.

Milgram (1963) examined justifications for acts of genocide offered by those accused at the World War II, Nuremberg War Criminal trials. Their defense often was based on obedience  – that they were just following orders from their superiors.

The experiments began in July 1961, a year after the trial of Adolf Eichmann in Jerusalem. Milgram devised the experiment to answer the question:

Could it be that Eichmann and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders? Could we call them all accomplices?” (Milgram, 1974).

Milgram (1963) wanted to investigate whether Germans were particularly obedient to authority figures, as this was a common explanation for the Nazi killings in World War II.

Milgram selected participants for his experiment by newspaper advertising for male participants to take part in a study of learning at Yale University.

The procedure was that the participant was paired with another person and they drew lots to find out who would be the ‘learner’ and who would be the ‘teacher.’  The draw was fixed so that the participant was always the teacher, and the learner was one of Milgram’s confederates (pretending to be a real participant).

The learner (a confederate called Mr. Wallace) was taken into a room and had electrodes attached to his arms, and the teacher and researcher went into a room next door that contained an electric shock generator and a row of switches marked from 15 volts (Slight Shock) to 375 volts (Danger: Severe Shock) to 450 volts (XXX).

The shocks in Stanley Milgram’s obedience experiments were not real. The “learners” were actors who were part of the experiment and did not actually receive any shocks.

However, the “teachers” (the real participants of the study) believed the shocks were real, which was crucial for the experiment to measure obedience to authority figures even when it involved causing harm to others.

Milgram’s Experiment (1963)

Milgram (1963) was interested in researching how far people would go in obeying an instruction if it involved harming another person.

Stanley Milgram was interested in how easily ordinary people could be influenced into committing atrocities, for example, Germans in WWII.

Volunteers were recruited for a controlled experiment investigating “learning” (re: ethics: deception). 

Participants were 40 males, aged between 20 and 50, whose jobs ranged from unskilled to professional, from the New Haven area. They were paid $4.50 for just turning up.

At the beginning of the experiment, they were introduced to another participant, a confederate of the experimenter (Milgram).

They drew straws to determine their roles – learner or teacher – although this was fixed, and the confederate was always the learner. There was also an “experimenter” dressed in a gray lab coat, played by an actor (not Milgram).

Two rooms in the Yale Interaction Laboratory were used – one for the learner (with an electric chair) and another for the teacher and experimenter with an electric shock generator.

The “learner” (Mr. Wallace) was strapped to a chair with electrodes.

After he has learned a list of word pairs given to him to learn, the “teacher” tests him by naming a word and asking the learner to recall its partner/pair from a list of four possible choices.

The teacher is told to administer an electric shock every time the learner makes a mistake, increasing the level of shock each time. There were 30 switches on the shock generator marked from 15 volts (slight shock) to 450 (danger – severe shock).

The learner gave mainly wrong answers (on purpose), and for each of these, the teacher gave him an electric shock. When the teacher refused to administer a shock, the experimenter was to give a series of orders/prods to ensure they continued.

There were four prods, and if one was not obeyed, then the experimenter (Mr. Williams) read out the next prod, and so on.

Prod 1 : Please continue. Prod 2: The experiment requires you to continue. Prod 3 : It is absolutely essential that you continue. Prod 4 : You have no other choice but to continue.

These prods were to be used in order, and begun afresh for each new attempt at defiance (Milgram, 1974, p. 21). The experimenter also had two special prods available. These could be used as required by the situation:

• Although the shocks may be painful, there is no permanent tissue damage, so please go on’ (ibid.)
• ‘Whether the learner likes it or not, you must go on until he has learned all the word pairs correctly. So please go on’ (ibid., p. 22).

65% (two-thirds) of participants (i.e., teachers) continued to the highest level of 450 volts. All the participants continued to 300 volts.

Milgram did more than one experiment – he carried out 18 variations of his study.  All he did was alter the situation (IV) to see how this affected obedience (DV).

Conclusion 

The individual explanation for the behavior of the participants would be that it was something about them as people that caused them to obey, but a more realistic explanation is that the situation they were in influenced them and caused them to behave in the way that they did.

Some aspects of the situation that may have influenced their behavior include the formality of the location, the behavior of the experimenter, and the fact that it was an experiment for which they had volunteered and been paid.

Ordinary people are likely to follow orders given by an authority figure, even to the extent of killing an innocent human being.  Obedience to authority is ingrained in us all from the way we are brought up.

People tend to obey orders from other people if they recognize their authority as morally right and/or legally based. This response to legitimate authority is learned in a variety of situations, for example in the family, school, and workplace.

Milgram summed up in the article “The Perils of Obedience” (Milgram 1974), writing:

“The legal and philosophic aspects of obedience are of enormous import, but they say very little about how most people behave in concrete situations. I set up a simple experiment at Yale University to test how much pain an ordinary citizen would inflict on another person simply because he was ordered to by an experimental scientist. Stark authority was pitted against the subjects’ [participants’] strongest moral imperatives against hurting others, and, with the subjects’ [participants’] ears ringing with the screams of the victims, authority won more often than not. The extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority constitutes the chief finding of the study and the fact most urgently demanding explanation.”

Milgram’s Agency Theory

Milgram (1974) explained the behavior of his participants by suggesting that people have two states of behavior when they are in a social situation:

• The autonomous state – people direct their own actions, and they take responsibility for the results of those actions.
• The agentic state – people allow others to direct their actions and then pass off the responsibility for the consequences to the person giving the orders. In other words, they act as agents for another person’s will.

Milgram suggested that two things must be in place for a person to enter the agentic state:

• The person giving the orders is perceived as being qualified to direct other people’s behavior. That is, they are seen as legitimate.
• The person being ordered about is able to believe that the authority will accept responsibility for what happens.

According to Milgram, when in this agentic state, the participant in the obedience studies “defines himself in a social situation in a manner that renders him open to regulation by a person of higher status. In this condition the individual no longer views himself as responsible for his own actions but defines himself as an instrument for carrying out the wishes of others” (Milgram, 1974, p. 134).

Agency theory says that people will obey an authority when they believe that the authority will take responsibility for the consequences of their actions. This is supported by some aspects of Milgram’s evidence.

For example, when participants were reminded that they had responsibility for their own actions, almost none of them were prepared to obey.

In contrast, many participants who were refusing to go on did so if the experimenter said that he would take responsibility.

According to Milgram (1974, p. 188):

“The behavior revealed in the experiments reported here is normal human behavior but revealed under conditions that show with particular clarity the danger to human survival inherent in our make-up.

And what is it we have seen? Not aggression, for there is no anger, vindictiveness, or hatred in those who shocked the victim….

Something far more dangerous is revealed: the capacity for man to abandon his humanity, indeed, the inevitability that he does so, as he merges his unique personality into larger institutional structures.”

Milgram Experiment Variations

The Milgram experiment was carried out many times whereby Milgram (1965) varied the basic procedure (changed the IV).  By doing this Milgram could identify which factors affected obedience (the DV).

Obedience was measured by how many participants shocked to the maximum 450 volts (65% in the original study). Stanley Milgram conducted a total of 23 variations (also called conditions or experiments) of his original obedience study:

In total, 636 participants were tested in 18 variation studies conducted between 1961 and 1962 at Yale University.

In the original baseline study – the experimenter wore a gray lab coat to symbolize his authority (a kind of uniform).

The lab coat worn by the experimenter in the original study served as a crucial symbol of scientific authority that increased obedience. The lab coat conveyed expertise and legitimacy, making participants see the experimenter as more credible and trustworthy.

Milgram carried out a variation in which the experimenter was called away because of a phone call right at the start of the procedure.

The role of the experimenter was then taken over by an ‘ordinary member of the public’ ( a confederate) in everyday clothes rather than a lab coat. The obedience level dropped to 20%.

Change of Location:  The Mountain View Facility Study (1963, unpublished)

Milgram conducted this variation in a set of offices in a rundown building, claiming it was associated with “Research Associates of Bridgeport” rather than Yale.

The lab’s ordinary appearance was designed to test if Yale’s prestige encouraged obedience. Participants were led to believe that a private research firm experimented.

In this non-university setting, obedience rates dropped to 47.5% compared to 65% in the original Yale experiments. This suggests that the status of location affects obedience.

Private research firms are viewed as less prestigious than certain universities, which affects behavior. It is easier under these conditions to abandon the belief in the experimenter’s essential decency.

The impressive university setting reinforced the experimenter’s authority and conveyed an implicit approval of the research.

Milgram filmed this variation for his documentary Obedience , but did not publish the results in his academic papers. The study only came to wider light when archival materials, including his notes, films, and data, were studied by later researchers like Perry (2013) in the decades after Milgram’s death.

Two Teacher Condition

When participants could instruct an assistant (confederate) to press the switches, 92.5% shocked to the maximum of 450 volts.

Allowing the participant to instruct an assistant to press the shock switches diffused personal responsibility and likely reduced perceptions of causing direct harm.

By attributing the actions to the assistant rather than themselves, participants could more easily justify shocking to the maximum 450 volts, reflected in the 92.5% obedience rate.

When there is less personal responsibility, obedience increases. This relates to Milgram’s Agency Theory.

Touch Proximity Condition

The teacher had to force the learner’s hand down onto a shock plate when the learner refused to participate after 150 volts. Obedience fell to 30%.

Forcing the learner’s hand onto the shock plate after 150 volts physically connected the teacher to the consequences of their actions. This direct tactile feedback increased the teacher’s personal responsibility.

No longer shielded from the learner’s reactions, the proximity enabled participants to more clearly perceive the harm they were causing, reducing obedience to 30%. Physical distance and indirect actions in the original setup made it easier to rationalize obeying the experimenter.

The participant is no longer buffered/protected from seeing the consequences of their actions.

Social Support Condition

When the two confederates set an example of defiance by refusing to continue the shocks, especially early on at 150 volts, it permitted the real participant also to resist authority.

Two other participants (confederates) were also teachers but refused to obey. Confederate 1 stopped at 150 volts, and Confederate 2 stopped at 210 volts.

Their disobedience provided social proof that it was acceptable to disobey. This modeling of defiance lowered obedience to only 10% compared to 65% without such social support. It demonstrated that social modeling can validate challenging authority.

The presence of others who are seen to disobey the authority figure reduces the level of obedience to 10%.

Absent Experimenter Condition 

It is easier to resist the orders from an authority figure if they are not close by. When the experimenter instructed and prompted the teacher by telephone from another room, obedience fell to 20.5%.

Many participants cheated and missed out on shocks or gave less voltage than ordered by the experimenter. The proximity of authority figures affects obedience.

The physical absence of the authority figure enabled participants to act more freely on their own moral inclinations rather than the experimenter’s commands. This highlighted the role of an authority’s direct presence in influencing behavior.

A key reason the obedience studies fascinate people is Milgram presented them as a scientific experiment, contrasting himself as an “empirically grounded scientist” compared to philosophers. He claimed he systematically varied factors to alter obedience rates.

However, recent scholarship using archival records shows Milgram’s account of standardizing the procedure was misleading. For example, he published a list of standardized prods the experimenter used when participants questioned continuing. Milgram said these were delivered uniformly in a firm but polite tone.

Analyzing audiotapes, Gibson (2013) found considerable variation from the published protocol – the prods differed across trials. The point is not that Milgram did poor science, but that the archival materials reveal the limitations of the textbook account of his “standardized” procedure.

The qualitative data like participant feedback, Milgram’s notes, and researchers’ actions provide a fuller, messier picture than the obedience studies’ “official” story. For psychology students, this shows how scientific reporting can polish findings in a way that strays from the less tidy reality.

Critical Evaluation

Inaccurate description of the prod methodology:.

A key reason the obedience studies fascinate people is Milgram (1974) presented them as a scientific experiment, contrasting himself as an “empirically grounded scientist” compared to philosophers. He claimed he systematically varied factors to alter obedience rates.

However, recent scholarship using archival records shows Milgram’s account of standardizing the procedure was misleading. For example, he published a list of standardized prods the experimenter used when participants questioned continuing. Milgram said these were delivered uniformly in a firm but polite tone (Gibson, 2013; Perry, 2013; Russell, 2010).

Perry’s (2013) archival research revealed another discrepancy between Milgram’s published account and the actual events. Milgram claimed standardized prods were used when participants resisted, but Perry’s audiotape analysis showed the experimenter often improvised more coercive prods beyond the supposed script.

This off-script prodding varied between experiments and participants, and was especially prevalent with female participants where no gender obedience difference was found – suggesting the improvisation influenced results. Gibson (2013) and Russell (2009) corroborated the experimenter’s departures from the supposed fixed prods. 

Prods were often combined or modified rather than used verbatim as published.

Russell speculated the improvisation aimed to achieve outcomes the experimenter believed Milgram wanted. Milgram seemed to tacitly approve of the deviations by not correcting them when observing.

This raises significant issues around experimenter bias influencing results, lack of standardization compromising validity, and ethical problems with Milgram misrepresenting procedures.

Milgram’s experiment lacked external validity:

The Milgram studies were conducted in laboratory-type conditions, and we must ask if this tells us much about real-life situations.

We obey in a variety of real-life situations that are far more subtle than instructions to give people electric shocks, and it would be interesting to see what factors operate in everyday obedience. The sort of situation Milgram investigated would be more suited to a military context.

Orne and Holland (1968) accused Milgram’s study of lacking ‘experimental realism,”’ i.e.,” participants might not have believed the experimental set-up they found themselves in and knew the learner wasn’t receiving electric shocks.

“It’s more truthful to say that only half of the people who undertook the experiment fully believed it was real, and of those two-thirds disobeyed the experimenter,” observes Perry (p. 139).

Milgram’s sample was biased:

• The participants in Milgram’s study were all male. Do the findings transfer to females?
• Milgram’s study cannot be seen as representative of the American population as his sample was self-selected. This is because they became participants only by electing to respond to a newspaper advertisement (selecting themselves).
• They may also have a typical “volunteer personality” – not all the newspaper readers responded so perhaps it takes this personality type to do so.

Yet a total of 636 participants were tested in 18 separate experiments across the New Haven area, which was seen as being reasonably representative of a typical American town.

Milgram’s findings have been replicated in a variety of cultures and most lead to the same conclusions as Milgram’s original study and in some cases see higher obedience rates.

However, Smith and Bond (1998) point out that with the exception of Jordan (Shanab & Yahya, 1978), the majority of these studies have been conducted in industrialized Western cultures, and we should be cautious before we conclude that a universal trait of social behavior has been identified.

Selective reporting of experimental findings:

Perry (2013) found Milgram omitted findings from some obedience experiments he conducted, reporting only results supporting his conclusions. A key omission was the Relationship condition (conducted in 1962 but unpublished), where participant pairs were relatives or close acquaintances.

When the learner protested being shocked, most teachers disobeyed, contradicting Milgram’s emphasis on obedience to authority.

Perry argued Milgram likely did not publish this 85% disobedience rate because it undermined his narrative and would be difficult to defend ethically since the teacher and learner knew each other closely.

Milgram’s selective reporting biased interpretations of his findings. His failure to publish all his experiments raises issues around researchers’ ethical obligation to completely and responsibly report their results, not just those fitting their expectations.

Unreported analysis of participants’ skepticism and its impact on their behavior:

Perry (2013) found archival evidence that many participants expressed doubt about the experiment’s setup, impacting their behavior. This supports Orne and Holland’s (1968) criticism that Milgram overlooked participants’ perceptions.

Incongruities like apparent danger, but an unconcerned experimenter likely cued participants that no real harm would occur. Trust in Yale’s ethics reinforced this. Yet Milgram did not publish his assistant’s analysis showing participant skepticism correlated with disobedience rates and varied by condition.

Obedient participants were more skeptical that the learner was harmed. This selective reporting biased interpretations. Additional unreported findings further challenge Milgram’s conclusions.

This highlights issues around thoroughly and responsibly reporting all results, not just those fitting expectations. It shows how archival evidence makes Milgram’s study a contentious classic with questionable methods and conclusions.

Ethical Issues

What are the potential ethical concerns associated with Milgram’s research on obedience?

While not a “contribution to psychology” in the traditional sense, Milgram’s obedience experiments sparked significant debate about the ethics of psychological research.

Baumrind (1964) criticized the ethics of Milgram’s research as participants were prevented from giving their informed consent to take part in the study. 

Participants assumed the experiment was benign and expected to be treated with dignity.

As a result of studies like Milgram’s, the APA and BPS now require researchers to give participants more information before they agree to take part in a study.

The participants actually believed they were shocking a real person and were unaware the learner was a confederate of Milgram’s.

However, Milgram argued that “illusion is used when necessary in order to set the stage for the revelation of certain difficult-to-get-at-truths.”

Milgram also interviewed participants afterward to find out the effect of the deception. Apparently, 83.7% said that they were “glad to be in the experiment,” and 1.3% said that they wished they had not been involved.

Protection of participants 

Participants were exposed to extremely stressful situations that may have the potential to cause psychological harm. Many of the participants were visibly distressed (Baumrind, 1964).

Signs of tension included trembling, sweating, stuttering, laughing nervously, biting lips and digging fingernails into palms of hands. Three participants had uncontrollable seizures, and many pleaded to be allowed to stop the experiment.

Milgram described a businessman reduced to a “twitching stuttering wreck” (1963, p. 377),

In his defense, Milgram argued that these effects were only short-term. Once the participants were debriefed (and could see the confederate was OK), their stress levels decreased.

“At no point,” Milgram (1964) stated, “were subjects exposed to danger and at no point did they run the risk of injurious effects resulting from participation” (p. 849).

To defend himself against criticisms about the ethics of his obedience research, Milgram cited follow-up survey data showing that 84% of participants said they were glad they had taken part in the study.

Milgram used this to claim that the study caused no serious or lasting harm, since most participants retrospectively did not regret their involvement.

Yet archival accounts show many participants endured lasting distress, even trauma, refuting Milgram’s insistence the study caused only fleeting “excitement.” By not debriefing all, Milgram misled participants about the true risks involved (Perry, 2013).

However, Milgram did debrief the participants fully after the experiment and also followed up after a period of time to ensure that they came to no harm.

Milgram debriefed all his participants straight after the experiment and disclosed the true nature of the experiment.

Participants were assured that their behavior was common, and Milgram also followed the sample up a year later and found no signs of any long-term psychological harm.

The majority of the participants (83.7%) said that they were pleased that they had participated, and 74% had learned something of personal importance.

Perry’s (2013) archival research found Milgram misrepresented debriefing – around 600 participants were not properly debriefed soon after the study, contrary to his claims. Many only learned no real shocks occurred when reading a mailed study report months later, which some may have not received.

Milgram likely misreported debriefing details to protect his credibility and enable future obedience research. This raises issues around properly informing and debriefing participants that connect to APA ethics codes developed partly in response to Milgram’s study.

Right to Withdrawal 

The BPS states that researchers should make it plain to participants that they are free to withdraw at any time (regardless of payment).

When expressing doubts, the experimenter assured them all was well. Trusting Yale scientists, many took the experimenter at his word that “no permanent tissue damage” would occur, and continued administering shocks despite reservations.

Did Milgram give participants an opportunity to withdraw? The experimenter gave four verbal prods which mostly discouraged withdrawal from the experiment:

• Please continue.
• The experiment requires that you continue.
• It is absolutely essential that you continue.
• You have no other choice, you must go on.

Milgram argued that they were justified as the study was about obedience, so orders were necessary.

Milgram pointed out that although the right to withdraw was made partially difficult, it was possible as 35% of participants had chosen to withdraw.

Replications

Direct replications have not been possible due to current ethical standards . However, several researchers have conducted partial replications and variations that aim to reproduce some aspects of Milgram’s methods ethically.

One important replication was conducted by Jerry Burger in 2009. Burger’s partial replication included several safeguards to protect participant welfare, such as screening out high-risk individuals, repeatedly reminding participants they could withdraw, and stopping at the 150-volt shock level. This was the point where Milgram’s participants first heard the learner’s protests.

As 79% of Milgram’s participants who went past 150 volts continued to the maximum 450 volts, Burger (2009) argued that 150 volts provided a reasonable estimate for obedience levels. He found 70% of participants continued to 150 volts, compared to 82.5% in Milgram’s comparable condition.

Another replication by Thomas Blass (1999) examined whether obedience rates had declined over time due to greater public awareness of the experiments. Blass correlated obedience rates from replication studies between 1963 and 1985 and found no relationship between year and obedience level. He concluded that obedience rates have not systematically changed, providing evidence against the idea of “enlightenment effects”.

Some variations have explored the role of gender. Milgram found equal rates of obedience for male and female participants. Reviews have found most replications also show no gender difference, with a couple of exceptions (Blass, 1999). For example, Kilham and Mann (1974) found lower obedience in female participants.

Partial replications have also examined situational factors. Having another person model defiance reduced obedience compared to a solo participant in one study, but did not eliminate it (Burger, 2009). The authority figure’s perceived expertise seems to be an influential factor (Blass, 1999). Replications have supported Milgram’s observation that stepwise increases in demands promote obedience.

Personality factors have been studied as well. Traits like high empathy and desire for control correlate with some minor early hesitation, but do not greatly impact eventual obedience levels (Burger, 2009). Authoritarian tendencies may contribute to obedience (Elms, 2009).

In sum, the partial replications confirm Milgram’s degree of obedience. Though ethical constraints prevent full reproductions, the key elements of his procedure seem to consistently elicit high levels of compliance across studies, samples, and eras. The replications continue to highlight the power of situational pressures to yield obedience.

Milgram (1963) Audio Clips

Below you can also hear some of the audio clips taken from the video that was made of the experiment. Just click on the clips below.

Why was the Milgram experiment so controversial?

The Milgram experiment was controversial because it revealed people’s willingness to obey authority figures even when causing harm to others, raising ethical concerns about the psychological distress inflicted upon participants and the deception involved in the study.

Would Milgram’s experiment be allowed today?

Milgram’s experiment would likely not be allowed today in its original form, as it violates modern ethical guidelines for research involving human participants, particularly regarding informed consent, deception, and protection from psychological harm.

Did anyone refuse the Milgram experiment?

Yes, in the Milgram experiment, some participants refused to continue administering shocks, demonstrating individual variation in obedience to authority figures. In the original Milgram experiment, approximately 35% of participants refused to administer the highest shock level of 450 volts, while 65% obeyed and delivered the 450-volt shock.

How can Milgram’s study be applied to real life?

Milgram’s study can be applied to real life by demonstrating the potential for ordinary individuals to obey authority figures even when it involves causing harm, emphasizing the importance of questioning authority, ethical decision-making, and fostering critical thinking in societal contexts.

Were all participants in Milgram’s experiments male?

Yes, in the original Milgram experiment conducted in 1961, all participants were male, limiting the generalizability of the findings to women and diverse populations.

Why was the Milgram experiment unethical?

The Milgram experiment was considered unethical because participants were deceived about the true nature of the study and subjected to severe emotional distress. They believed they were causing harm to another person under the instruction of authority.

Additionally, participants were not given the right to withdraw freely and were subjected to intense pressure to continue. The psychological harm and lack of informed consent violates modern ethical guidelines for research.

Baumrind, D. (1964). Some thoughts on ethics of research: After reading Milgram’s” Behavioral study of obedience.”.  American Psychologist ,  19 (6), 421.

Blass, T. (1999). The Milgram paradigm after 35 years: Some things we now know about obedience to authority 1.  Journal of Applied Social Psychology ,  29 (5), 955-978.

Brannigan, A., Nicholson, I., & Cherry, F. (2015). Introduction to the special issue: Unplugging the Milgram machine.  Theory & Psychology ,  25 (5), 551-563.

Burger, J. M. (2009). Replicating Milgram: Would people still obey today? American Psychologist, 64 , 1–11.

Elms, A. C. (2009). Obedience lite. American Psychologist, 64 (1), 32–36.

Gibson, S. (2013). Milgram’s obedience experiments: A rhetorical analysis. British Journal of Social Psychology, 52, 290–309.

Gibson, S. (2017). Developing psychology’s archival sensibilities: Revisiting Milgram’s obedience’ experiments.  Qualitative Psychology ,  4 (1), 73.

Griggs, R. A., Blyler, J., & Jackson, S. L. (2020). Using research ethics as a springboard for teaching Milgram’s obedience study as a contentious classic.  Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology ,  6 (4), 350.

Haslam, S. A., & Reicher, S. D. (2018). A truth that does not always speak its name: How Hollander and Turowetz’s findings confirm and extend the engaged followership analysis of harm-doing in the Milgram paradigm. British Journal of Social Psychology, 57, 292–300.

Haslam, S. A., Reicher, S. D., & Birney, M. E. (2016). Questioning authority: New perspectives on Milgram’s ‘obedience’ research and its implications for intergroup relations. Current Opinion in Psychology, 11 , 6–9.

Haslam, S. A., Reicher, S. D., Birney, M. E., Millard, K., & McDonald, R. (2015). ‘Happy to have been of service’: The Yale archive as a window into the engaged followership of participants in Milgram’s ‘obedience’ experiment. British Journal of Social Psychology, 54 , 55–83.

Kaplan, D. E. (1996). The Stanley Milgram papers: A case study on appraisal of and access to confidential data files. American Archivist, 59 , 288–297.

Kaposi, D. (2022). The second wave of critical engagement with Stanley Milgram’s ‘obedience to authority’experiments: What did we learn?.  Social and Personality Psychology Compass ,  16 (6), e12667.

Kilham, W., & Mann, L. (1974). Level of destructive obedience as a function of transmitter and executant roles in the Milgram obedience paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29 (5), 696–702.

Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience . Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology , 67, 371-378.

Milgram, S. (1964). Issues in the study of obedience: A reply to Baumrind. American Psychologist, 19 , 848–852.

Milgram, S. (1965). Some conditions of obedience and disobedience to authority . Human Relations, 18(1) , 57-76.

Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view . Harpercollins.

Miller, A. G. (2009). Reflections on” Replicating Milgram”(Burger, 2009), American Psychologis t, 64 (1):20-27

Nicholson, I. (2011). “Torture at Yale”: Experimental subjects, laboratory torment and the “rehabilitation” of Milgram’s “obedience to authority”. Theory & Psychology, 21 , 737–761.

Nicholson, I. (2015). The normalization of torment: Producing and managing anguish in Milgram’s “obedience” laboratory. Theory & Psychology, 25 , 639–656.

Orne, M. T., & Holland, C. H. (1968). On the ecological validity of laboratory deceptions. International Journal of Psychiatry, 6 (4), 282-293.

Orne, M. T., & Holland, C. C. (1968). Some conditions of obedience and disobedience to authority. On the ecological validity of laboratory deceptions. International Journal of Psychiatry, 6 , 282–293.

Perry, G. (2013). Behind the shock machine: The untold story of the notorious Milgram psychology experiments . New York, NY: The New Press.

Reicher, S., Haslam, A., & Miller, A. (Eds.). (2014). Milgram at 50: Exploring the enduring relevance of psychology’s most famous studies [Special issue]. Journal of Social Issues, 70 (3), 393–602

Russell, N. (2014). Stanley Milgram’s obedience to authority “relationship condition”: Some methodological and theoretical implications. Social Sciences, 3, 194–214

Shanab, M. E., & Yahya, K. A. (1978). A cross-cultural study of obedience. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society .

Smith, P. B., & Bond, M. H. (1998). Social psychology across cultures (2nd Edition) . Prentice Hall.

Further Reading

• The power of the situation: The impact of Milgram’s obedience studies on personality and social psychology
• Seeing is believing: The role of the film Obedience in shaping perceptions of Milgram’s Obedience to Authority Experiments
• Replicating Milgram: Would people still obey today?

Learning Check

Which is true regarding the Milgram obedience study?

• The aim was to see how obedient people would be in a situation where following orders would mean causing harm to another person.
• Participants were under the impression they were part of a learning and memory experiment.
• The “learners” in the study were actual participants who volunteered to be shocked as part of the experiment.
• The “learner” was an actor who was in on the experiment and never actually received any real shocks.
• Although the participant could not see the “learner”, he was able to hear him clearly through the wall
• The study was directly influenced by Milgram’s observations of obedience patterns in post-war Europe.
• The experiment was designed to understand the psychological mechanisms behind war crimes committed during World War II.
• The Milgram study was universally accepted in the psychological community, and no ethical concerns were raised about its methodology.
• When Milgram’s experiment was repeated in a rundown office building in Bridgeport, the percentage of the participants who fully complied with the commands of the experimenter remained unchanged.
• The experimenter (authority figure) delivered verbal prods to encourage the teacher to continue, such as ‘Please continue’ or ‘Please go on’.
• Over 80% of participants went on to deliver the maximum level of shock.
• Milgram sent participants questionnaires after the study to assess the effects and found that most felt no remorse or guilt, so it was ethical.
• The aftermath of the study led to stricter ethical guidelines in psychological research.
• The study emphasized the role of situational factors over personality traits in determining obedience.

Answers : Items 3, 8, 9, and 11 are the false statements.

Short Answer Questions

• Briefly explain the results of the original Milgram experiments. What did these results prove?
• List one scenario on how an authority figure can abuse obedience principles.
• List one scenario on how an individual could use these principles to defend their fellow peers.
• In a hospital, you are very likely to obey a nurse. However, if you meet her outside the hospital, for example in a shop, you are much less likely to obey. Using your knowledge of how people resist pressure to obey, explain why you are less likely to obey the nurse outside the hospital.
• Describe the shock instructions the participant (teacher) was told to follow when the victim (learner) gave an incorrect answer.
• State the lowest voltage shock that was labeled on the shock generator.
• What would likely happen if Milgram’s experiment included a condition in which the participant (teacher) had to give a high-level electric shock for the first wrong answer?

Group Activity

Gather in groups of three or four to discuss answers to the short answer questions above.

For question 2, review the different scenarios you each came up with. Then brainstorm on how these situations could be flipped.

For question 2, discuss how an authority figure could instead empower those below them in the examples your groupmates provide.

For question 3, discuss how a peer could do harm by using the obedience principles in the scenarios your groupmates provide.

Essay Topic

• What’s the most important lesson of Milgram’s Obedience Experiments? Fully explain and defend your answer.
• Milgram selectively edited his film of the obedience experiments to emphasize obedient behavior and minimize footage of disobedience. What are the ethical implications of a researcher selectively presenting findings in a way that fits their expected conclusions?

More From Forbes

'the raft' tells of sex, chaos and mutiny in a crazy 1973 'social experiment'.

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

Picture of the 1973 Acali raft that crossed the Atlantic with 11 people onboard in a controversial ... [+] scientific experiment in human behavior. From the documentary film The Raft directed by Marcus Lindeen.

In 1973, a Mexican anthropologist named Santiago Genovés sailed across the Atlantic Ocean with 10 other people on a 12x7-meter raft. They departed on May 11th from the Canary Islands, off the northwest coast of Africa, and drifted for more than three months, with no motor, to the east coast of Mexico.

Genovés selected the four men and six women from hundreds of applicants, representing a variety of cultures and religious beliefs, to create a "microcosm of the world." Ostensibly, he wanted to resolve how to establish peace on Earth. In reality, he nearly killed everyone on board.

A new documentary by the Swedish filmmaker Marcus Lindeen retells  Genovés' quixotic, megalomaniacal expedition more than four decades later. Through Genovés's own writings, footage of the voyage itself and interviews with the participants who are still alive, Lindeen weaves a riveting tale of hubris, failure and mutiny on the high seas. 

No one was allowed to bring any reading material aboard the Acali, as  Genovés named the raft , so to entertain themselves, the participants would have to resort to singing songs, telling stories and,  Genovés hoped, having lots and lots of sex. To ensure this would happen, he selected only people he deemed "sexually attractive." Genovés, meanwhile, would document everything they did in journals and on 40 reels of 16mm film.

The anthropologist hypothesized that when forced into captivity, with nowhere to go but the shark-infested waters, the men would fight over the ovulating females, as monkeys had done in similar experiments. At the same time, to mirror what he recognized as a changing society, Genovés gave the women the "important" jobs, like captain and doctor, while the men were assigned more menial ones. But even this was calculated. Genovés speculated that when faced with women in power, the men might "become more frustrated" and "try to take over power."

Genovés brought along a Catholic priest from Angola to ensure that any sex anyone might have would be inextricably bound up with guilt and shame. This, he thought, would create internal conflicts that might manifest in additional displays of aggression. 

Picture of the 1973 Acali raft that crossed the Atlantic with 11 people onboard in a controversial ... [+] scientific experiment in human behavior.

Much to the anthropologist's dismay, everyone aboard the raft more or less got along.  So when he found that they weren't fighting, or even having that much sex – they had virtually no privacy; even their toilet was nothing but a metal cage off the side of the raft –  Genovés tried to incite conflict. He regularly gave them confidential questionnaires, for "research purposes," and some weeks into the experiment began holding meetings to share their private responses to questions like "who annoys you the most on the raft?" and "with whom would you most like to have sex?" This, too, failed to produce the results Genovés hoped for. 

Eventually, the only real conflict on the Acali was between the participants and  Genovés himself. When they reached the Caribbean Sea just as a hurricane was forming in their path, the Swedish captain he'd placed in charge demanded that they change course to find a safe harbor. He refused, as that would ruin the experiment, and declared himself captain. But his tenure was brief. With a vote of zero confidence, and absent military force, Genovés was swiftly dehelmed, and Maria Bjornastam reinstated as captain of the Acali. 

In the end, Genovés, who died in 2013, failed to teach the world much of anything, let alone create world peace, or even make himself famous. His colleagues at the National Autonomous University of Mexico, where he'd taught for 20 years, disavowed him and his study while he was at sea, and the Acali drifted into the fog of forgotten history (though he did write a book about his experiment, Acali ). 

But it wasn't a complete failure. Far from it, say some of those Lindeen interviewed for the film. Just not in the way Genovés imagined. 

Scene from documentary film THE RAFT by Marcus Lindeen, that reunites participants of the Acali ... [+] expedition from 1973, where 11 people drifted across The Atlantic as part of a controversial scientific study in human behavior. From left to right: Mary Gidley, Edna Reves, Fé Seymour, Eisuke Yamaki, Maria Björnstam and Servane Zanotti.

Throughout  The Raft , the seven surviving participants recount vivid memories of the journey, of the intimate moments they shared, of the struggles they never told anyone about at the time, and in some cases, of the hardships they'd fled back home. Those reflections lend Lindeen's film an elegiac poignancy, allowing it to be as much about subjectivity and perception as it is about one of the more bizarre chapters in the annals of social science.

Perhaps most of all,  The Raft gives voice to the women, especially, whom  Genovés saw as mere subjects. Their reflections on his treatment of them, on their own ingenuity, and on how they returned home forever transformed by the experience amount to an extraordinary and fascinating tale of triumph.

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

# 5 Famous Social Psychology Experiments

There are countless social psychology experiments that have been influential. Here, we highlight five powerful experiments in social psychology that have shaped the development of the field.

# 1. Solomon Asch’s Experiments on Conformity

Solomon Asch carried out a series of psychological tests known as the Asch Conformity Experiments in the 1950s to find out how much social pressure from the majority group could persuade a person to conform. Asch’s experimental hypothesis was centered around how people gave in to peer pressure and whether they would disregard their own opinions in order to fit in with the group. The experiment summary of the Asch conformity studies is that several lines with different heights are presented and the participant is challenged by the confederate’s answers to either agree or disagree.

The Asch experiment's basic design comprised a subject and a cohort of accomplices. The participants were informed that they would be performing a visual perception task in which they would need to match a given line's length to one of three comparison lines.

Out of all the participants in each group, only one was truly ‘naïve’; the others were ‘confederates’ who were told to provide false answers on purpose for specific trials. Thus, the ‘naive’ participant would be challenged by the ‘confederates’ who provided wrong answers. This would essentially place the ‘naive’ participant in a challenging position to be in.

An example of the experimental procedure from Solomon Asch’s experiment on conformity in 1955. There are 6 confederates pictures and the 1 real participant, sitting in the second to last seat, who are looking at the trial stimuli at the front of the room. Image copyright: Cara Flanagan.

Throughout the trials, the confederates would intentionally select the incorrect response. The crucial query was whether the ‘naive’ participant would follow their own accurate assessment or adhere to the false majority opinion. The results and findings demonstrated that even in cases where the right response was evident, a sizable portion of the ‘naive’ participants would agree with the confederate group's inaccurate responses.

The degree of conformity was influenced by several factors:

• Group Size: Up to a certain point, conformity grew in proportion to the size of the majority. The rate of conformity did not significantly increase after a certain number of confederates.
• Unanimity: A participant was far less likely to comply if even one other person in the group provided the right response. The pressure to fit in was significantly lessened when there was a dissident voice.
• Task Difficulty: Participants found it more difficult to trust their own judgment when the task was more ambiguous or difficult, ie. when the comparison lines were more similar in size, leading to an increase in conformity.
• Response Type - Public vs. Private: When participants were required to provide their answers in public, they were more likely to comply, as opposed to when providing answers privately. Thus, one factor that clearly affected conformity was the fear of social rejection.

In summary, the Asch Conformity Experiment results emphasize the strong influence of social pressure on individual behavior and the propensity to conform even in the face of clear evidence to the contrary, have become classic studies in social psychology.

Try it out in Labvanced:

A preview of the data and Asch Conformity Experiment results recorded in Labvanced can be seen in the image below, such as the values for the presented line heights, choices, and reaction times:

View of the data collected from an online version of the Asch Conformity Experiment conducted with Labvanced.

open in new window

# 2. Bobo Doll Experiment by Albert Bandura: Social Learning Theory

Frames from a video and images shown to the children who participated in the Bobo doll experiment. Copyright owner: Albert Bandura.

Social psychologist Albert Bandura carried out a groundbreaking study in 1961 called the Bobo Doll experiment, which made a substantial contribution to our understanding of children's social learning and aggression. Bandura was curious about how children learn to pick up new behaviors by imitation and observation.

In this experiment, children interacted with a life-sized inflatable doll called Bobo while being exposed to adult models who were aggressive and non-aggressive. The conditions of the study were as follows:

• Aggressive Model Condition: Children witnessed a role model act violently against the Bobo doll. Along with hitting and kicking, the aggressive actions included verbal abuse.
• Non-Aggressive Model Condition: Children witnessed a role model who did not act aggressively toward the Bobo doll.
• Control Group: No adult role model was seen interacting with the Bandura Bobo doll.

Children were placed in a room with the Bobo doll and other toys after looking at the conditions / models. The purpose of the study was to determine whether the children would imitate the violent acts they witnessed.

The Bobo Doll study produced some fascinating results. Compared to the control group and the non-aggressive model, children who watched the aggressive model were more likely to act aggressively toward the Bobo doll. This finding aligned with Albert Bandura's social learning theory which postulates that people learn new abilities through observing and imitating the behaviors of others. The girls in the aggressive model condition also reacted more physically aggressive when the model was male, but they responded more verbally when the model was female. The observation of how frequently they punched Bobo broke the general pattern of gender-inverted effects. It was also found that boys were more likely than girls to imitate same-sex models.

Our knowledge of the roles that imitation and observational learning play in children's development of aggressive behaviors has greatly increased as a result of Bandura’s Bobo doll study.

# 3. Stanford Prison Experiment by Philip Zimbardo

Experiment participants who had the role of a ‘guard’, pictured walking in the prison yard.

Social psychologist Philip Zimbardo carried out a study at Stanford University in 1971 that is known as the Stanford Prison Experiment. The experiment's goal was to find out how people would act in a prison simulation if they were in positions of power or powerlessness.

Out of the 75 volunteers, Zimbardo and his colleagues chose 24 male college students to take part in the study. The participants were divided into two groups at random and placed in a mock prison located in the Stanford psychology building's basement: guards or inmates.

The participants were completely absorbed in their parts; guards were deindividualized by being outfitted in sunglasses and uniforms, and inmates were given numbers rather than names. The guards started acting abusively and authoritarian toward the inmates as a result of the authority that had been bestowed upon them. In response, the inmates displayed symptoms of severe stress and emotional collapse.

The experiment was supposed to last two weeks, but because of the participants' severe psychological distress, it was called off after just six days! The experiment's inherent ethical issues surfaced as a result of the situation getting worse. The study has sparked ethical questions due to issues like incomplete debriefing, intense simulation, and incompletely informed consent. Because the participants' psychological well-being was compromised, Philip Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment has come under fire on a number of occasions.

In summary, the results for Philip Zimbardo’s Stanford experiment shed a light on how even ordinary beings can quickly adopt harmful and dangerous behaviors just because of their environment or roles. The Stanford Prison Experiment is frequently brought up in conversations concerning how circumstances can affect behavior and how people can misuse their power when they are in positions of authority.

# 4. Obedience Experiment by Stanley Milgram

The study setup of the Obedience experiment where the experimenter and student are confederates and the teacher who is the participant is instructed to administer shocks.

In the early 1960s, social psychologist Stanley Milgram carried out a number of contentious studies on submission to authority figures and the Milgram Experiment is the most well-known of these studies.

For the Obedience Experiment, three people were involved in the basic setup of the experiment: the learner (an associate of the experimenter), the teacher (a participant), and the experimenter (an authority figure). The ‘teacher’ participant was informed that the overall aim of the study was to examine the impact of punishment on learning and was directed to shock the student with progressively stronger electric shocks each time they erred on a memory task. The teacher participants were led to believe that the shocks were real (even though they weren't). Thus this setup was a mask for the real aim of the study: to assess to what extent an individual will be obedient to an authority figure, even in the case where their obedience is causing severe harm to others.

As the experiment went on, the experimenter (ie. the authority figure) would give the participant instructions to intensify the shocks while the learner, or confederate, made deliberate mistakes. Voltage levels ranging from mild to severe were labeled on the shocks, with the highest level indicating possible danger from 15 volts to 450 (danger – severe shock). Thus, the teacher could see how dangerous the high shock levels were and know they were ‘inflicting’ pain (even though the shocks were not real).

In summary, the key discovery of Milgram's Obedience to Authority experiment was that a sizable fraction of participants kept shocking the confederate even after they showed signs of distress, objected, and finally fell silent. The experiment result showed that a significant number of participants used the shock generator to its maximum capacity, demonstrating a high degree of submission to authority.

Because Stanley Milgram's Obedience study caused participants psychological distress, criticism and questions were raised pointing to its ethical issues. However, the study still managed to shed light on how common people might act dubiously or immorally when directed by an authority figure, offering insightful information about the influence of authority and social conformity.

# 5. The Hawthorne Effect by Henry A. Landsberger

A phenomenon known as the Hawthorne Effect occurs when people adjust their behavior when they become aware that they are being watched or observed by others. A set of experiments carried out at the Western Electric Hawthorne Works in Chicago in the 1920s and 1930s led to the naming of this effect. The initial purpose of the studies was to look into how worker productivity and lighting conditions relate to one another. Elton Mayo also studied in this context how work structure changes (like rest periods) influenced worked outcomes at the factory.

The data from the Hawthorne studies were later reanalyzed and interpreted in the 1950s by social scientist Henry A. Landsberger. His work, especially the 1958 paper "Hawthorne Revisited," was instrumental in making the Hawthorne Effect concept widely known.

Landsberger came to the conclusion that it was the workers' awareness of being observed/studied that actually explained the observed changes in worker productivity, rather than the lighting conditions as first believed. The workers' motivation and performance improved as a result of the researchers' interest and attention.

From then, the results from Hawthorne Effect study has gained widespread acceptance in organizational behavior psychology and social science. It emphasizes how crucial social and psychological elements are in shaping behavior, especially in settings like research or in the workplace where people may behave differently because they are aware that they are being watched or studied. The Hawthorne Effect is frequently brought up when talking about the difficulties in using human subjects in experiments and research because it can be difficult to identify and comprehend the underlying causes of observed behavior when subjects are aware they are being observed.

# Social Psychology Experiments Today

While these classic experiments helped establish the field of social psychology by studying complex topics like obedience and conformity, today there are more ethical guidelines that researchers must follow.

Furthermore, due to the digitization of the 21st century, online experiments are becoming more and more popular which allow for participants to complete tasks together using their computers or smartphones.

# References

• Asch, S. E. (1952). Group forces in the modification and distortion of judgments. In S. E. Asch, Social psychology (pp. 450–501). Prentice-Hall, Inc.
• Asch, S. E. (1953). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgements. Group dynamics. Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological monographs: General and applied, 70(9), 1.
• 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. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63(3), 575.
• 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., & Walters, R. H. (1977). Social learning theory(Vol. 1). Prentice Hall: Englewood cliffs.
• Landsberger, H. A. (1958). Hawthorne Revisited: Management and the Worker, Its Critics, and Developments in Human Relations in Industry.
• Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. The Journal of abnormal and social psychology, 67(4), 371.
• Milgram, S. (1965). Some conditions of obedience and disobedience to authority. Human relations, 18(1), 57-76.
• Zimbardo, P. G. (1973). On the ethics of intervention in human psychological research: With special reference to the Stanford prison experiment. Cognition, 2(2), 243–256.
• Zimbardo, P. G. (1995). The psychology of evil: A situationist perspective on recruiting good people to engage in anti-social acts. Japanese Journal of Social Psychology, 11(2), 125-133.

We're sorry, your browser is not supported. Please update to a modern browser to view this page. Learn More

The Biggest Psychological Experiment in History Is Running Now

What can the pandemic teach us about how people respond to adversity?

• Research has shown that when faced with potentially traumatic events, about two thirds of people show psychological resilience.
• But the mental health toll of the pandemic may not fit this paradigm.
• Life has been upended at an unprecedented scope and speed, and researchers see an opportunity to investigate the science of resilience in new ways.

T he impact of ­COVID-19 on the physical health of the world's citizens is extraordinary. By mid-May there were upward of four million cases spread across more than 180 countries. The pandemic's effect on mental health could be even more far-reaching. At one point roughly one third of the planet's population was under orders to stay home. That means 2.6 billion people--more than were alive during World War II--were experiencing the emotional and financial reverberations of this new coronavirus. "[The lockdown] is arguably the largest psychological experiment ever conducted," wrote health psychologist Elke Van Hoof of Free University of Brussels-VUB in Belgium. The results of this unwitting experiment are only beginning to be calculated.

The science of resilience, which investigates how people weather adversity, offers some clues. A resilient individual, wrote Harvard University psychiatrist George Vaillant, resembles a twig with a fresh, green living core. "When twisted out of shape, such a twig bends, but it does not break; instead it springs back and continues growing." The metaphor describes a surprising number of people: As many as two thirds of individuals recover from difficult experiences without prolonged psychological effects, even when they have lived through events such as violent crime or being a prisoner of war. Some even go on to grow and learn from what happened to them. But the other third suffers real psychological distress--some people for a few months, others for years.

Even if most individuals prove resilient, the toll of the ­COVID-19 disruptions and the sheer numbers involved have experts warning of a mental illness "tsunami." People face a multiple wallop: the threat of disease, loneliness of isolation, loss of loved ones , repercussions of job loss and ongoing uncertainty about when the pandemic will end . Depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress will undoubtedly follow for some. Mental health hotlines are reporting surges in calls, and early surveys have found high levels of concern. "This pandemic just ticks all the boxes in terms of the kinds of stressors that are going to be difficult," says psychologist Anita DeLongis of the University of British Columbia, who studies psychosocial responses to disease. The deaths by suicide of health care professionals who had been on the medical front lines are powerful reminders of the risks .

Individual resilience is further complicated by the fact that this pandemic has not affected each person in the same way. For all that is shared--the coronavirus has struck every level of society and left few lives unchanged-- there has been tremendous variation in the disruption and devastation experienced . Consider Brooklyn, just one borough in hard-hit New York City. Residents who started the year living or working within a few miles of one another have very different stories of illness, loss and navigating the challenges of social distancing. How quickly and how well individuals, businesses and organizations recover will depend on the jobs, insurance and health they had when this started, on whether they have endured hassle or heartbreak, and on whether they can tap financial resources and social support.

The pandemic has laid bare the inequities in the American health care system and economic safety net. Black and Latino Americans are dying at much higher rates than white Americans . "When we talk about preexisting conditions, it isn't just if I'm obese, it's our society's preexisting condition," says medical anthropologist Carol Worthman of Emory University, an expert in global mental health.

Fortunately, the unprecedented pandemic is leading to unprecedented science not just in virology but on mental health and resilience. Behavioral scientists are measuring the psychological toll in real time and striving to identify what helps people cope. Unlike, say, the September 11 terrorist attacks or Hurricane Katrina, which occurred over a finite period even though their effects were drawn out, the open-ended time frame for ­COVID-19 allows for new kinds of longitudinal studies and research directions. The sudden mass switch to virtual forms of working and socializing is expected to jump-start more nuanced investigations into what makes social interaction satisfying--or stultifying. If researchers meet the challenge of ­COVID-19, says psychiatrist Dennis Charney of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, "there will be a whole new science of resilience. We could learn how to help people become more resilient before these things happen."

Rafael Hasid arrived in New York City from his native Israel in 2000 to attend the French Culinary Institute. In 2005 he opened a restaurant called Miriam in Brooklyn that became a neighborhood favorite. In the first weeks of March Hasid could see what was coming. "I was following the news in Israel," he says. "We were two weeks behind in every respect. I was saying, 'This is going to happen here.'" When Miriam's popular weekend brunch attracted a third of the usual crowd, Hasid did not spend much time wondering what to do: he gave away all of the restaurant's perishable food to the neighbors. By the time the city required all restaurants to shut down, Miriam had already closed.

Faced with potentially traumatic events, "about 65 percent of people are going to show minimal psychological symptoms," says clinical psychologist George Bonanno of Teacher's College at Columbia University. Bonanno, who is an expert on resiliency, studies the aftermath of hurricanes, terrorist attacks, life-threatening injuries and epidemics such as the 2003 SARS outbreak. His research and that of others consistently show three common psychological responses to hardship. Two thirds of people follow a resilience trajectory and maintain relatively stable psychological and physical health. About 25 percent struggle temporarily with psychopathology such as depression or post-traumatic stress disorder and then recover--a pattern known as the recovery trajectory. And 10 percent suffer lasting psychological distress. These results hold true across diverse populations and socioeconomic statuses. "We're talking about everybody," Bonanno says. On the other hand, the risk of psychiatric disorders is twice as high for people on the lowest economic rungs.

But the mental health effects of a crisis so sweeping and insidious may not adhere to this paradigm. Studies show that strict quarantine can lead to negative psychological effects such as PTSD, although few of us have been under true quarantine, which refers to isolating after a possible exposure to infection. Instead much of the world is living with restrictions that Bonanno suspects amount to something more like managing constant stress. "This is the first time in living history we've had a global lockdown that's gone on for such a long time," says epidemiologist Daisy Fancourt of University College London. "We simply don't know how people are going to react to this."

The potential scope of the impact is considerable. "This is different from other forms of stress because it's not just one domain of your life," says health psychologist Nancy Sin of the University of British Columbia. "People are dealing with relationship or family challenges, with financial and work challenges, with health."

Early reports are already showing clear effects. The first nationwide large-scale survey in China, where the crisis hit earliest, found that almost 35 percent reported psychological distress. In the U.S., rising fear and anxiety about ­COVID have been found in people who already suffer from anxiety. Another study captured worrisome findings in older adults. This is surprising because previous research shows that, for the most part, older adults have better emotional well-being. "During this pandemic, older adults don't have those age-related strengths in emotions that we would typically expect," says Sin, who studies aging and is collaborating with DeLongis in an ongoing ­COVID-19 study of 64,000 individuals worldwide. "They are reporting just as much stress as middle-aged and younger people."

Sin is still analyzing the causes of the stress but suspects it is caused by older adults' higher likelihood of getting sick and of losing loved ones. Older people are coping with their stress better than younger people, however, and reporting less depression or anxiety. They may be benefiting from the perspective that comes with having lived through more than younger people, Sin says. Adults older than 65 have also had more time to develop skills for dealing with stress, and many have retired and so are less likely to be concerned about work.

Fancourt began a study in mid-March that grew to include more than 85,000 U.K. residents. It is tracking depression, anxiety, stress and loneliness week by week. "We need to know in real time what's happening," Fancourt says. Six weeks in, they found that levels of depression were significantly higher than before the pandemic.

Generally, those with previously diagnosed mental health illnesses, those who live alone and younger people were reporting the highest levels of depression and anxiety. On the positive side, there was a slight decrease in anxiety levels once the lockdown was declared. "Uncertainty tends to make things worse," Fancourt says. Some are frozen by not knowing what is to come, whereas others find ways to carry on.

After Hasid's restaurant had been closed for three weeks, he had not yet received any of the government payments meant to protect small businesses. While his situation was rife with uncertainty, "I was thinking that we have to continue creating business for ourselves," he says. When a few customers e-mailed to inquire if he would consider catering their Passover seders, Hasid developed a prix fixe holiday menu for delivery. Before the pandemic, Hasid was planning to open a delicatessen that would be located in an adjacent storefront. Instead of renovating the new space, he opened the deli inside the restaurant. His biggest worry was whether employees would feel safe. To reassure them, in addition to social distancing, he requires masks and gloves and has someone come in to bleach the restaurant morning and night. Hasid is looking into other sanitizing strategies involving blowers and alcohol that he heard have been used in Singapore.

Hasid recognizes that his ability to adapt is not something every business can do, especially many restaurants that run on tight margins. The new operation is using minimal staff, but Hasid continues to pay--out of his own pocket--any employees who have not been able to get through to unemployment. Serving food via delivery brings in less than a third of Miriam's former income, but he says it is better than nothing. The restaurant is also preparing a weekly meal for a local hospital. "It is not a money maker, but it's the least we can do." Hasid is pleased with Miriam's reinvention and optimistic that the restaurant will ultimately survive. "We are in a much better situation than a lot of other places in New York," he says.

When Brooklyn resident Tom Inck developed a persistent fever and dry cough in the middle of March, the psychotherapist and management consultant feared he had ­COVID-19. Because of the shortage of tests at the time, Inck's doctor first screened for every other known virus (Inck paid for the test panel). Then doctor and patient met on the streets of Manhattan. Standing on Madison Avenue in full protective equipment, the doctor administered the test, which came back positive six days later.

Successfully coping in a crisis means continuing to function and engaging in day-to-day activities. One must solve problems (whether that means getting groceries or a virus test), regulate emotions and manage relationships. There are factors that predict resilience such as optimism, the ability to keep perspective, strong social support and flexible thinking. People who believe they can cope do, in fact, tend to cope better.

During nine days of isolation in a spare room, Inck filled the time with meditating and reading. In some ways, things were harder for his wife, Wendy Blattner, who was managing her husband's care, the transition of her marketing agency to remote work, and the emotions of the couple's two college-aged daughters, who were upset at the loss of their semesters and anxious about their father. Blattner left meals outside her husband's door and got up every three hours throughout the night to record his temperature and blood oxygen level. She was scared but resolute. "I felt like he had excellent care, even though it was remote, and that I had the resources within myself and the support I needed," she says. "That's what I told my kids and what I told myself--that it might get rough, but it was going to be okay."

Most people's coping skills can be strengthened. Several of the new studies are designed to identify successful strategies that buffer the effects of the stress. So far, Fancourt says, people are encouraged to follow classic mental health strategies: getting enough sleep, observing a routine, exercising, eating well and maintaining strong social connections. Spending time on projects, even small ones, that provide a sense of purpose also helps.

In previous work, DeLongis has shown that those who are high in empathy are more likely to engage in appropriate health behaviors such as social distancing and to have better mental health outcomes than people who are low in empathy. But her earlier studies of diseases such as SARS and West Nile were cross-sectional and captured only a moment in time. Her ­COVID-19 study will follow people's behavior and attitudes for months to capture changes in empathy and coping over time. "This isn't just about a trait of empathy," DeLongis says. Empathetic responses can be learned and encouraged with proper messaging, and her hunch is that increases or decreases in empathetic responding over weeks and months will be associated with shifts in health behaviors and coping mechanisms.

As part of DeLongis's study, Sin is having people record their daily activities and emotions for a week. "So far the picture is that life is really challenging, but people are finding ways to meet that challenge," she says. Many report a great deal of positive social interactions, many of them remote. Older adults are reporting the highest levels of positive experiences in their daily lives, often through providing support to others.

It is striking that remote connections are proving satisfying. Previous research on the effects of digital technology and media focused on the association between time spent on screens and psychological well-being but revealed little about the worth of different kinds of online interaction. Now that the world is relying on the Internet to socialize, investigating those nuances is crucial. Should social media closely mimic face-to-face interaction or can less intense forms of communication leave people feeling connected? We do not know yet, but it is likely those studies will now get funded when previously they weren't. "I think we just skipped a decade of conversation in a month," says psychologist Amy Orben of the University of Cambridge, who studies adolescent mental health and technology use.

Social media is a factor in other kinds of research as well. Psychologist Roxane Cohen Silver of the University of California, Irvine, is assessing the impact of media exposure on people's well-being. "Those who consume a great deal of news about a community-wide crisis are more distressed," she says. Computational social scientist Johannes Eichstaedt of Stanford University is combining large-scale analyses of Twitter with machine learning to capture levels of depression, loneliness and joy during the pandemic.

As Blattner feared, things did get rough for their family. On nights seven and eight, when Inck's fever hovered around 103 and his blood oxygen levels dropped to 93, his doctor (via Zoom) said if the levels stayed there or got worse, Inck should go to the hospital. "I'm not going to have a patient who dies at home," he said, a statement that alarmed the children. "The toughest thing for us was the fear," Inck says. But Tylenol kept the fever in check, and short, shallow breaths kept Inck's blood oxygen level in the safety zone. After 10 days, he began to feel better.

The experience left Inck grateful and energized. He threw himself back into work counseling others who were sick and signed up to be a plasma donor for critical patients. But, unlike others who recovered, he did not initially venture out much. "The world felt like a vulnerable place," he says.

Even those brimming with personal resilience need outside help if they face challenges on multiple fronts. As executive director of IMPACCT Brooklyn, a community development corporation that serves the historically black neighborhoods of Brooklyn, Bernell K. Grier sees just how hard the pandemic has hit the African-American community. "Daily, I'm hearing of people who are either ­COVID-positive, recovering from it or have died from it," she says. Three of those deaths occurred in apartments that Grier manages and required her to organize deep-cleaning services. Still, she pressed on. "Seniors are fearful of going out, fearful of anyone coming to their front door," Grier says. "They also are not tech-savvy. A lot of things where they're being told to go on the computer, they need someone to hold their hand and help them through the process."

The pandemic, Fancourt says, "is going to exacerbate the social gradient that we're used to seeing across society. It's crucial that [people] have interventions at a national level that can support [them]." In the U.K., such interventions include the National Health Service and a furlough program that pays up to 80 percent of the salaries of millions of Britons who could not work because of the pandemic. In the U.S., paycheck-protection packages and unemployment exist but proved difficult to access quickly.

Grier's organization provides a variety of services around housing, small business advocacy, and interaction with financial and government institutions. As soon as the pandemic hit, her staff distributed information about public health and economic resources. They introduced webinars to help businesses apply for loans. As of late April, "none of the ones that we helped got anything," Grier says. "It's not reaching our businesses." Only 70 percent of Grier's tenants were able to pay rent in April. "We still have to pay the supers, the porters, the heat and electricity, the taxes and everything else," Grier says. "It's a domino effect. If the residents can't pay, we can't pay."

Worthman, the Emory anthropologist, says the ability to cope with the pandemic's reverberations is not just an individual issue but a societal one. It is also an opportunity. "People have pointed to periods of disaster in American history, after World War I and the Depression, that led to real structural change that benefited people."

Grier is advocating for positive change for her community. In her talks with public health and elected officials, she points out disparities such as the fact that the first test centers were not located in poor neighborhoods. "This is a spotlight on what has existed for too long," she says. "When you're looking at [solutions], make sure that income equality and a racial-equity lens is a filter for everything that's put in place." As Brooklyn reemerges from social isolation, Grier knows the critical role groups like hers play. "We will continue to be here to be that liaison, that credit counselor, that navigator."

Cultivating resilience though community support appears to be more important than ever. As a school nurse in Brooklyn, Marilyn Howard, who immigrated from Guyana as a teenager, worked through the early weeks of March until the public schools closed. She got sick the day after she left work. It took 10 days to get the test results that confirmed she had ­COVID-19. By then Howard thought she was on the road to recovery. But on Saturday, April 4, she awoke with labored breathing that rapidly worsened. Her brother Nigel Howard, with whom she shared an apartment, called an ambulance. But April 4 was near the peak of the pandemic in Brooklyn, and there was no ambulance available. Nigel drove them to the nearest hospital, but Marilyn's breathing deteriorated on the way. Less than a minute before they arrived, her heart stopped, and she could not be revived. She was 53.

"A couple of simple things could have saved my sister's life," says Haslyn Howard, the youngest of Marilyn's five brothers. If schools had closed earlier or her colleague could have taken a sick day, she might not have gotten sick. If someone had recommended a pulse oximeter, she would have known to go to the hospital sooner. If an ambulance had been available ... The Howard brothers arranged a viewing at a Long Island funeral home to provide some closure. Haslyn permitted only three people in the room at a time, but a simultaneous virtual service allowed more than 250 people to celebrate Marilyn's life.

Nigel has since tested positive for ­­COVID-19 and has been isolated at home. "My brothers and I are in the initial phases of trying to plan an organization that targets efforts to help the black and brown community, poor communities, address some of these [issues] on a local and tangible level," Haslyn says. It is something they can do in memory of their sister that would have made her proud. "That's one of the ways that we're coping," he adds. "How do we turn tragedy into triumph?"

Read more about the coronavirus outbreak from Scientific American here . And read coverage from our international network of magazines here .

• How the COVID-19 Pandemic Could End Recent epidemics provide clues to ways the current crisis could stop By Lydia Denworth
• How Doctors and Nurses Manage Coronavirus Grief In their own voices, health care workers from across the country reflect on coping with the pandemic Interviews by Jillian Mock and Jen Schwartz
• Genetic Engineering Could Make a COVID-19 Vaccine in Months Rather Than Years Candidates are speeding toward human trials By Charles Schmidt
• Virus Mutations Reveal How COVID-19 Really Spread Globe-trotting humans were the culprits By Mark Fischetti, Martin Krzywinski

Support science journalism.

Thanks for reading Scientific American. Knowledge awaits.

Already a subscriber? Sign in.

Thanks for reading Scientific American. Create your free account or Sign in to continue.

See Subscription Options

Continue reading with a Scientific American subscription.

You may cancel at any time.

11+ Psychology Experiment Ideas (Goals + Methods)

Have you ever wondered why some days you remember things easily, while on others you keep forgetting? Or why certain songs make you super happy and others just…meh?

Our minds are like big, mysterious puzzles, and every day we're finding new pieces to fit. One of the coolest ways to explore our brains and the way they work is through psychology experiments.

A psychology experiment is a special kind of test or activity researchers use to learn more about how our minds work and why we behave the way we do.

It's like a detective game where scientists ask questions and try out different clues to find answers about our feelings, thoughts, and actions. These experiments aren't just for scientists in white coats but can be fun activities we all try to discover more about ourselves and others.

Some of these experiments have become so famous, they’re like the celebrities of the science world! Like the Marshmallow Test, where kids had to wait to eat a yummy marshmallow, or Pavlov's Dogs, where dogs learned to drool just hearing a bell.

Let's look at a few examples of psychology experiments you can do at home.

What Are Some Classic Experiments?

Imagine a time when the mysteries of the mind were being uncovered in groundbreaking ways. During these moments, a few experiments became legendary, capturing the world's attention with their intriguing results.

The Marshmallow Test

One of the most talked-about experiments of the 20th century was the Marshmallow Test , conducted by Walter Mischel in the late 1960s at Stanford University.

The goal was simple but profound: to understand a child's ability to delay gratification and exercise self-control.

Children were placed in a room with a marshmallow and given a choice: eat the marshmallow now or wait 15 minutes and receive two as a reward. Many kids struggled with the wait, some devouring the treat immediately, while others demonstrated remarkable patience.

But the experiment didn’t end there. Years later, Mischel discovered something astonishing. The children who had waited for the second marshmallow were generally more successful in several areas of life, from school achievements to job satisfaction!

While this experiment highlighted the importance of teaching patience and self-control from a young age, it wasn't without its criticisms. Some argued that a child's background, upbringing, or immediate surroundings might play a significant role in their choices.

Moreover, there were concerns about the ethics of judging a child's potential success based on a brief interaction with a marshmallow.

Pavlov's Dogs

Traveling further back in time and over to Russia, another classic experiment took the world by storm. Ivan Pavlov , in the early 1900s, wasn't initially studying learning or behavior. He was exploring the digestive systems of dogs.

But during his research, Pavlov stumbled upon a fascinating discovery. He noticed that by ringing a bell every time he fed his dogs, they eventually began to associate the bell's sound with mealtime. So much so, that merely ringing the bell, even without presenting food, made the dogs drool in anticipation!

This reaction demonstrated the concept of "conditioning" - where behaviors can be learned by linking two unrelated stimuli. Pavlov's work revolutionized the world's understanding of learning and had ripple effects in various areas like animal training and therapy techniques.

Pavlov came up with the term classical conditioning , which is still used today. Other psychologists have developed more nuanced types of conditioning that help us understand how people learn to perform different behaviours.

Classical conditioning is the process by which a neutral stimulus becomes associated with a meaningful stimulus , leading to the same response. In Pavlov's case, the neutral stimulus (bell) became associated with the meaningful stimulus (food), leading the dogs to salivate just by hearing the bell.

Modern thinkers often critique Pavlov's methods from an ethical standpoint. The dogs, crucial to his discovery, may not have been treated with today's standards of care and respect in research.

Both these experiments, while enlightening, also underline the importance of conducting research with empathy and consideration, especially when it involves living beings.

What is Ethical Experimentation?

The tales of Pavlov's bells and Mischel's marshmallows offer us not just insights into the human mind and behavior but also raise a significant question: At what cost do these discoveries come?

Ethical experimentation isn't just a fancy term; it's the backbone of good science. When we talk about ethics, we're referring to the moral principles that guide a researcher's decisions and actions. But why does it matter so much in the realm of psychological experimentation?

An example of an experiment that had major ethical issues is an experiment called the Monster Study . This study was conducted in 1936 and was interested in why children develop a stutter.

The major issue with it is that the psychologists treated some of the children poorly over a period of five months, telling them things like “You must try to stop yourself immediately. Don’t ever speak unless you can do it right.”

You can imagine how that made the children feel!

This study helped create guidelines for ethical treatment in experiments. The guidelines include:

Respect for Individuals: Whether it's a dog in Pavlov's lab or a child in Mischel's study room, every participant—human or animal—deserves respect. They should never be subjected to harm or undue stress. For humans, informed consent (knowing what they're signing up for) is a must. This means that if a child is participating, they, along with their guardians, should understand what the experiment entails and agree to it without being pressured.

Honesty is the Best Policy: Researchers have a responsibility to be truthful. This means not only being honest with participants about the study but also reporting findings truthfully, even if the results aren't what they hoped for. There can be exceptions if an experiment will only succeed if the participants aren't fully aware, but it has to be approved by an ethics committee .

Safety First: No discovery, no matter how groundbreaking, is worth harming a participant. The well-being and mental, emotional, and physical safety of participants is paramount. Experiments should be designed to minimize risks and discomfort.

Considering the Long-Term: Some experiments might have effects that aren't immediately obvious. For example, while a child might seem fine after participating in an experiment, they could feel stressed or anxious later on. Ethical researchers consider and plan for these possibilities, offering support and follow-up if needed.

The Rights of Animals: Just because animals can't voice their rights doesn't mean they don't have any. They should be treated with care, dignity, and respect. This means providing them with appropriate living conditions, not subjecting them to undue harm, and considering alternatives to animal testing when possible.

While the world of psychological experiments offers fascinating insights into behavior and the mind, it's essential to tread with care and compassion. The golden rule? Treat every participant, human or animal, as you'd wish to be treated. After all, the true mark of a groundbreaking experiment isn't just its findings but the ethical integrity with which it's conducted.

So, even if you're experimenting at home, please keep in mind the impact your experiments could have on the people and beings around you!

Let's get into some ideas for experiments.

1) Testing Conformity

Our primary aim with this experiment is to explore the intriguing world of social influences, specifically focusing on how much sway a group has over an individual's decisions. This social influence is called groupthink .

Humans, as social creatures, often find solace in numbers, seeking the approval and acceptance of those around them. But how deep does this need run? Does the desire to "fit in" overpower our trust in our own judgments?

This experiment not only provides insights into these questions but also touches upon the broader themes of peer pressure, societal norms, and individuality. Understanding this could shed light on various real-world situations, from why fashion trends catch on to more critical scenarios like how misinformation can spread.

Method: This idea is inspired by the classic Asch Conformity Experiments . Here's a simple way to try it:

• Assemble a group of people (about 7-8). Only one person will be the real participant; the others will be in on the experiment.
• Show the group a picture of three lines of different lengths and another line labeled "Test Line."
• Ask each person to say out loud which of the three lines matches the length of the "Test Line."
• Unknown to the real participant, the other members will intentionally choose the wrong line. This is to see if the participant goes along with the group's incorrect choice, even if they can see it's wrong.

Real-World Impacts of Groupthink

Groupthink is more than just a science term; we see it in our daily lives:

Decisions at Work or School: Imagine being in a group where everyone wants to do one thing, even if it's not the best idea. People might not speak up because they're worried about standing out or being the only one with a different opinion.

Wrong Information: Ever heard a rumor that turned out to be untrue? Sometimes, if many people believe and share something, others might believe it too, even if it's not correct. This happens a lot on the internet.

Peer Pressure: Sometimes, friends might all want to do something that's not safe or right. People might join in just because they don't want to feel left out.

Missing Out on New Ideas: When everyone thinks the same way and agrees all the time, cool new ideas might never get heard. It's like always coloring with the same crayon and missing out on all the other bright colors!

2) Testing Color and Mood

We all have favorite colors, right? But did you ever wonder if colors can make you feel a certain way? Color psychology is the study of how colors can influence our feelings and actions.

For instance, does blue always calm us down? Does red make us feel excited or even a bit angry? By exploring this, we can learn how colors play a role in our daily lives, from the clothes we wear to the color of our bedroom walls.

• Find a quiet room and set up different colored lights or large sheets of colored paper: blue, red, yellow, and green.
• Invite some friends over and let each person spend a few minutes under each colored light or in front of each colored paper.
• After each color, ask your friends to write down or talk about how they feel. Are they relaxed? Energized? Happy? Sad?

Researchers have always been curious about this. Some studies have shown that colors like blue and green can make people feel calm, while colors like red might make them feel more alert or even hungry!

Real-World Impacts of Color Psychology

Ever noticed how different places use colors?

Hospitals and doctors' clinics often use soft blues and greens. This might be to help patients feel more relaxed and calm.

Many fast food restaurants use bright reds and yellows. These colors might make us feel hungry or want to eat quickly and leave.

Classrooms might use a mix of colors to help students feel both calm and energized.

3) Testing Music and Brainpower

Think about your favorite song. Do you feel smarter or more focused when you listen to it? This experiment seeks to understand the relationship between music and our brain's ability to remember things. Some people believe that certain types of music, like classical tunes, can help us study or work better. Let's find out if it's true!

• Prepare a list of 10-15 things to remember, like a grocery list or names of places.
• Invite some friends over. First, let them try to memorize the list in a quiet room.
• After a short break, play some music (try different types like pop, classical, or even nature sounds) and ask them to memorize the list again.
• Compare the results. Was there a difference in how much they remembered with and without music?

The " Mozart Effect " is a popular idea. Some studies in the past suggested that listening to Mozart's music might make people smarter, at least for a little while. But other researchers think the effect might not be specific to Mozart; it could be that any music we enjoy boosts our mood and helps our brain work better.

Real-World Impacts of Music and Memory

Think about how we use music:

• Study Sessions: Many students listen to music while studying, believing it helps them concentrate better.
• Workout Playlists: Gyms play energetic music to keep people motivated and help them push through tough workouts.
• Meditation and Relaxation: Calm, soothing sounds are often used to help people relax or meditate.

4) Testing Dreams and Food

Ever had a really wild dream and wondered where it came from? Some say that eating certain foods before bedtime can make our dreams more vivid or even a bit strange.

This experiment is all about diving into the dreamy world of sleep to see if what we eat can really change our nighttime adventures. Can a piece of chocolate or a slice of cheese transport us to a land of wacky dreams? Let's find out!

• Ask a group of friends to keep a "dream diary" for a week. Every morning, they should write down what they remember about their dreams.
• For the next week, ask them to eat a small snack before bed, like cheese, chocolate, or even spicy foods.
• They should continue writing in their "dream diary" every morning.
• At the end of the two weeks, compare the dream notes. Do the dreams seem different during the snack week?

The link between food and dreams isn't super clear, but some people have shared personal stories. For example, some say that spicy food can lead to bizarre dreams. Scientists aren't completely sure why, but it could be related to how food affects our body temperature or brain activity during sleep.

A cool idea related to this experiment is that of vivid dreams , which are very clear, detailed, and easy to remember dreams. Some people are even able to control their vivid dreams, or say that they feel as real as daily, waking life !

Real-World Impacts of Food and Dreams

Our discoveries might shed light on:

• Bedtime Routines: Knowing which foods might affect our dreams can help us choose better snacks before bedtime, especially if we want calmer sleep.
• Understanding Our Brain: Dreams can be mysterious, but studying them can give us clues about how our brains work at night.
• Cultural Beliefs: Many cultures have myths or stories about foods and dreams. Our findings might add a fun twist to these age-old tales!

5) Testing Mirrors and Self-image

Stand in front of a mirror. How do you feel? Proud? Shy? Curious? Mirrors reflect more than just our appearance; they might influence how we think about ourselves.

This experiment delves into the mystery of self-perception. Do we feel more confident when we see our reflection? Or do we become more self-conscious? Let's take a closer look.

• Set up two rooms: one with mirrors on all walls and another with no mirrors at all.
• Invite friends over and ask them to spend some time in each room doing normal activities, like reading or talking.
• After their time in both rooms, ask them questions like: "Did you think about how you looked more in one room? Did you feel more confident or shy?"
• Compare the responses to see if the presence of mirrors changes how they feel about themselves.

Studies have shown that when people are in rooms with mirrors, they can become more aware of themselves. Some might stand straighter, fix their hair, or even change how they behave. The mirror acts like an audience, making us more conscious of our actions.

Real-World Impacts of Mirrors and Self-perception

Mirrors aren't just for checking our hair. Ever wonder why clothing stores have so many mirrors? They might help shoppers visualize themselves in new outfits, encouraging them to buy.

Mirrors in gyms can motivate people to work out with correct form and posture. They also help us see progress in real-time!

And sometimes, looking in a mirror can be a reminder to take care of ourselves, both inside and out.

But remember, what we look like isn't as important as how we act in the world or how healthy we are. Some people claim that having too many mirrors around can actually make us more self conscious and distract us from the good parts of ourselves.

Some studies are showing that mirrors can actually increase self-compassion , amongst other things. As any tool, it seems like mirrors can be both good and bad, depending on how we use them!

6) Testing Plants and Talking

Have you ever seen someone talking to their plants? It might sound silly, but some people believe that plants can "feel" our vibes and that talking to them might even help them grow better.

In this experiment, we'll explore whether plants can indeed react to our voices and if they might grow taller, faster, or healthier when we chat with them.

• Get three similar plants, placing each one in a separate room.
• Talk to the first plant, saying positive things like "You're doing great!" or singing to it.
• Say negative things to the second plant, like "You're not growing fast enough!"
• Don't talk to the third plant at all; let it be your "silent" control group .
• Water all plants equally and make sure they all get the same amount of light.
• At the end of the month, measure the growth of each plant and note any differences in their health or size.

The idea isn't brand new. Some experiments from the past suggest plants might respond to sounds or vibrations. Some growers play music for their crops, thinking it helps them flourish.

Even if talking to our plants doesn't have an impact on their growth, it can make us feel better! Sometimes, if we are lonely, talking to our plants can help us feel less alone. Remember, they are living too!

Real-World Impacts of Talking to Plants

If plants do react to our voices, gardeners and farmers might adopt new techniques, like playing music in greenhouses or regularly talking to plants.

Taking care of plants and talking to them could become a recommended activity for reducing stress and boosting mood.

And if plants react to sound, it gives us a whole new perspective on how connected all living things might be .

7) Testing Virtual Reality and Senses

Virtual reality (VR) seems like magic, doesn't it? You put on a headset and suddenly, you're in a different world! But how does this "new world" affect our senses? This experiment wants to find out how our brains react to VR compared to the real world. Do we feel, see, or hear things differently? Let's get to the bottom of this digital mystery!

• You'll need a VR headset and a game or experience that can be replicated in real life (like walking through a forest). If you don't have a headset yourself, there are virtual reality arcades now!
• Invite friends to first experience the scenario in VR.
• Afterwards, replicate the experience in the real world, like taking a walk in an actual forest.
• Ask them questions about both experiences: Did one seem more real than the other? Which sounds were more clear? Which colors were brighter? Did they feel different emotions?

As VR becomes more popular, scientists have been curious about its effects. Some studies show that our brains can sometimes struggle to tell the difference between VR and reality. That's why some people might feel like they're really "falling" in a VR game even though they're standing still.

Real-World Impacts of VR on Our Senses

Schools might use VR to teach lessons, like taking students on a virtual trip to ancient Egypt. Understanding how our senses react in VR can also help game designers create even more exciting and realistic games.

Doctors could use VR to help patients overcome fears or to provide relaxation exercises. This is actually already a method therapists can use for helping patients who have serious phobias. This is called exposure therapy , which basically means slowly exposing someone (or yourself) to the thing you fear, starting from very far away to becoming closer.

For instance, if someone is afraid of snakes. You might show them images of snakes first. Once they are comfortable with the picture, they can know there is one in the next room. Once they are okay with that, they might use a VR headset to see the snake in the same room with them, though of course there is not an actual snake there.

8) Testing Sleep and Learning

We all know that feeling of trying to study or work when we're super tired. Our brains feel foggy, and it's hard to remember stuff. But how exactly does sleep (or lack of it) influence our ability to learn and remember things?

With this experiment, we'll uncover the mysteries of sleep and see how it can be our secret weapon for better learning.

• Split participants into two groups.
• Ask both groups to study the same material in the evening.
• One group goes to bed early, while the other stays up late.
• The next morning, give both groups a quiz on what they studied.
• Compare the results to see which group remembered more.

Sleep and its relation to learning have been explored a lot. Scientists believe that during sleep, especially deep sleep, our brains sort and store new information. This is why sometimes, after a good night's rest, we might understand something better or remember more.

Real-World Impacts of Sleep and Learning

Understanding the power of sleep can help:

• Students: If they know the importance of sleep, students might plan better, mixing study sessions with rest, especially before big exams.
• Workplaces: Employers might consider more flexible hours, understanding that well-rested employees learn faster and make fewer mistakes.
• Health: Regularly missing out on sleep can have other bad effects on our health. So, promoting good sleep is about more than just better learning.

9) Testing Social Media and Mood

Have you ever felt different after spending time on social media? Maybe happy after seeing a friend's fun photos, or a bit sad after reading someone's tough news.

Social media is a big part of our lives, but how does it really affect our mood? This experiment aims to shine a light on the emotional roller-coaster of likes, shares, and comments.

• Ask participants to note down how they're feeling - are they happy, sad, excited, or bored?
• Have them spend a set amount of time (like 30 minutes) on their favorite social media platforms.
• After the session, ask them again about their mood. Did it change? Why?
• Discuss what they saw or read that made them feel that way.

Previous research has shown mixed results. Some studies suggest that seeing positive posts can make us feel good, while others say that too much time on social media can make us feel lonely or left out.

Real-World Impacts of Social Media on Mood

Understanding the emotional impact of social media can help users understand their feelings and take breaks if needed. Knowing is half the battle! Additionally, teachers and parents can guide young users on healthy social media habits, like limiting time or following positive accounts.

And if it's shown that social media does impact mood, social media companies can design friendlier, less stressful user experiences.

But even if the social media companies don't change things, we can still change our social media habits to make ourselves feel better.

10) Testing Handwriting or Typing

Think about the last time you took notes. Did you grab a pen and paper or did you type them out on a computer or tablet?

Both ways are popular, but there's a big question: which method helps us remember and understand better? In this experiment, we'll find out if the classic art of handwriting has an edge over speedy typing.

• Divide participants into two groups.
• Present a short lesson or story to both groups.
• One group will take notes by hand, while the other will type them out.
• After some time, quiz both groups on the content of the lesson or story.
• Compare the results to see which note-taking method led to better recall and understanding.

Studies have shown some interesting results. While typing can be faster and allows for more notes, handwriting might boost memory and comprehension because it engages the brain differently, making us process the information as we write.

Importantly, each person might find one or the other works better for them. This could be useful in understanding our learning habits and what instructional style would be best for us.

Real-World Impacts of Handwriting vs. Typing

Knowing the pros and cons of each method can:

• Boost Study Habits: Students can pick the method that helps them learn best, especially during important study sessions or lectures.
• Work Efficiency: In jobs where information retention is crucial, understanding the best method can increase efficiency and accuracy.
• Tech Design: If we find out more about how handwriting benefits us, tech companies might design gadgets that mimic the feel of writing while combining the advantages of digital tools.

11) Testing Money and Happiness

We often hear the saying, "Money can't buy happiness," but is that really true? Many dream of winning the lottery or getting a big raise, believing it would solve all problems.

In this experiment, we dig deep to see if there's a real connection between wealth and well-being.

• Survey a range of participants, from those who earn a little to those who earn a lot, about their overall happiness. You can keep it to your friends and family, but that might not be as accurate as surveying a wider group of people.
• Ask them to rank things that bring them joy and note if they believe more money would boost their happiness. You could try different methods, one where you include some things that they have to rank, such as gardening, spending time with friends, reading books, learning, etc. Or you could just leave a blank list that they can fill in with their own ideas.
• Study the data to find patterns or trends about income and happiness.

Some studies have found money can boost happiness, especially when it helps people out of tough financial spots. But after reaching a certain income, extra dollars usually do not add much extra joy.

In fact, psychologists just realized that once people have an income that can comfortably support their needs (and some of their wants), they stop getting happier with more . That number is roughly $75,000, but of course that depends on the cost of living and how many members are in the family.

Real-World Impacts of Money and Happiness

If we can understand the link between money and joy, it might help folks choose jobs they love over jobs that just pay well. And instead of buying things, people might spend on experiences, like trips or classes, that make lasting memories.

Most importantly, we all might spend more time on hobbies, friends, and family, knowing they're big parts of what makes life great.

Some people are hoping that with Artificial Intelligence being able to do a lot of the less well-paying jobs, people might be able to do work they enjoy more, all while making more money and having more time to do the things that make them happy.

12) Testing Temperature and Productivity

Have you ever noticed how a cold classroom or office makes it harder to focus? Or how on hot days, all you want to do is relax? In this experiment, we're going to find out if the temperature around us really does change how well we work.

• Find a group of participants and a room where you can change the temperature.
• Set the room to a chilly temperature and give the participants a set of tasks to do.
• Measure how well and quickly they do these tasks.
• The next day, make the room comfortably warm and have them do similar tasks.
• Compare the results to see if the warmer or cooler temperature made them work better.

Some studies have shown that people can work better when they're in a room that feels just right, not too cold or hot. Being too chilly can make fingers slow, and being too warm can make minds wander.

What temperature is "just right"? It won't be the same for everyone, but most people find it's between 70-73 degrees Fahrenheit (21-23 Celsius).

Real-World Implications of Temperature and Productivity

If we can learn more about how temperature affects our work, teachers might set classroom temperatures to help students focus and learn better, offices might adjust temperatures to get the best work out of their teams, and at home, we might find the best temperature for doing homework or chores quickly and well.

Interestingly, temperature also has an impact on our sleep quality. Most people find slightly cooler rooms to be better for good sleep. While the daytime temperature between 70-73F is good for productivity, a nighttime temperature around 65F (18C) is ideal for most people's sleep.

Psychology is like a treasure hunt, where the prize is understanding ourselves better. With every experiment, we learn a little more about why we think, feel, and act the way we do. Some of these experiments might seem simple, like seeing if colors change our mood or if being warm helps us work better. But even the simple questions can have big answers that help us in everyday life.

Remember, while doing experiments is fun, it's also important to always be kind and think about how others feel. We should never make someone uncomfortable just for a test. Instead, let's use these experiments to learn and grow, helping to make the world a brighter, more understanding place for everyone.

Related posts:

• 150+ Flirty Goodnight Texts For Him (Sweet and Naughty Examples)
• Dream Interpreter & Dictionary (270+ Meanings)
• Sleep Stages (Light, Deep, REM)
• What Part of the Brain Regulates Body Temperature?
• Why Do We Dream? (6 Theories and Psychological Reasons)

Reference this article:

About The Author

Free Personality Test

Free Memory Test

Free IQ Test

PracticalPie.com is a participant in the Amazon Associates Program. As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

Follow Us On:

Youtube Facebook Instagram X/Twitter

Psychology Resources

Developmental

Personality

Relationships

Psychologists

Serial Killers

Psychology Tests

Personality Quiz

Memory Test

Depression test

Type A/B Personality Test

© PracticalPsychology. All rights reserved

Privacy Policy | Terms of Use

0, text: error()">

0, text: error(), css: errorCssClass">

Reset your password

Enter your email address or username and we’ll send you a link to reset your password

Check your inbox

An email with a link to reset your password was sent to the email address associated with your account

Provide email

Please enter your email to complete registration

Activate to continue

Your account isn't active yet. We've emailed you an activation link. Please check your inbox and click the link to activate your account

0, text: error" style="display: none;">

0, text: success" style="display: none;">

• Relationships

The Bored Panda iOS app is live! Fight boredom with iPhones and iPads here .

• Partnership
• Success stories
• --> -->