sociology social experiments examples

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.

• 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."

# 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.

• A-Z Publications

Annual Review of Sociology

Volume 43, 2017, review article, field experiments across the social sciences.

• Delia Baldassarri 1 , and Maria Abascal 2
• View Affiliations Hide Affiliations Affiliations: 1 Department of Sociology, New York University, New York, New York 10012; email: [email protected] 2 Department of Sociology, Columbia University, New York, New York 10027; email: [email protected]
• Vol. 43:41-73 (Volume publication date July 2017) https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-073014-112445
• First published as a Review in Advance on May 22, 2017
• © Annual Reviews

Using field experiments, scholars can identify causal effects via randomization while studying people and groups in their naturally occurring contexts. In light of renewed interest in field experimental methods, this review covers a wide range of field experiments from across the social sciences, with an eye to those that adopt virtuous practices, including unobtrusive measurement, naturalistic interventions, attention to realistic outcomes and consequential behaviors, and application to diverse samples and settings. The review covers four broad research areas of substantive and policy interest: first, randomized controlled trials, with a focus on policy interventions in economic development, poverty reduction, and education; second, experiments on the role that norms, motivations, and incentives play in shaping behavior; third, experiments on political mobilization, social influence, and institutional effects; and fourth, experiments on prejudice and discrimination. We discuss methodological issues concerning generalizability and scalability as well as ethical issues related to field experimental methods. We conclude by arguing that field experiments are well equipped to advance the kind of middle-range theorizing that sociologists value.

Article metrics loading...

Full text loading...

Literature Cited

• Abascal M . 2015 . Us and them: black–white relations in the wake of Hispanic population growth. Am. Sociol. Rev. 80 : 789– 813 [Google Scholar]
• Adida CL , Laitin DD , Valfort MA . 2016 . Why Muslim Integration Fails in Christian-Heritage Societies Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Ahmed AM , Hammarstedt M . 2008 . Discrimination in the rental housing market: a field experiment on the Internet. J. Urban Econ. 64 : 362– 72 [Google Scholar]
• Ahmed AM , Hammarstedt M . 2009 . Detecting discrimination against homosexuals: evidence from a field experiment on the Internet. Economica 76 : 599– 97 [Google Scholar]
• Arceneaux K , Nickerson DW . 2009 . Who is mobilized to vote? A re-analysis of 11 field experiments. Am. J. Political Sci. 53 : 1– 16 [Google Scholar]
• Attanasio O , Augsburg B , De Haas R , Fitzsimons E , Harmgart H . 2012 . Group lending or individual lending? Evidence from a randomised field experiment in Mongolia. Work. Pap. No. 136, Eur. Bank Reconstr. Dev. [Google Scholar]
• Attanasio O , Pellerano L , Reyes SP . 2009 . Building trust? Conditional cash transfer programmes and social capital. Fiscal Stud. 30 : 139– 77 [Google Scholar]
• Avdeenko A , Gilligan MG . 2015 . International interventions to build social capital: evidence from a field experiment in Sudan. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 109 : 427– 49 [Google Scholar]
• Ayres I , Siegelman P . 1995 . Race and gender discrimination in bargaining for a new car. Am. Econ. Rev. 85 : 304– 21 [Google Scholar]
• Baldassarri D . 2015 . Cooperative networks: altruism, group solidarity, and reciprocity in Ugandan farmer organizations. Am. J. Sociol. 121 : 355– 95 [Google Scholar]
• Baldassarri D . 2016 . Prosocial behavior across communities: evidence from a nationwide lost-letter experiment Presented at Advances with Field Experiments Conf., Sept. 16, Univ Chicago: [Google Scholar]
• Banerjee A , Bertrand M , Datta S , Mullainathan S . 2009 . Labor market discrimination in Delhi: evidence from a field experiment. J. Comp. Econ. 37 : 14– 27 [Google Scholar]
• Banerjee A , Duflo E . 2009 . The experimental approach to development economics. Annu. Rev. Econ. 1 : 151– 78 [Google Scholar]
• Banerjee A , Duflo E . 2011 . Poor Economics: A Radical Rethinking of the Way to Fight Global Poverty. New York: Public Affairs [Google Scholar]
• Banerjee A , Duflo E , Glennerster R , Kothari D . 2010a . Improving immunization coverage in rural India: Clustered randomized controlled immunisation campaigns with and without incentives. Br. Med. J. 340:c2220 [Google Scholar]
• Banerjee A , Duflo E , Glennerster R , Kinnan C . 2010b . The miracle of microfinance? Evidence from a randomized evaluation. Work. Pap. No. 13-09, Dep. Econ., MIT [Google Scholar]
• Barr A . 2003 . Trust and expected trustworthiness: experimental evidence from Zimbabwean villages. Econ. J. 113 : 614– 30 [Google Scholar]
• Bauchet J , Marshall C , Starita L , Thomas J , Yalouris A . 2011 . Latest findings from randomized evaluations of microfinance. Access Finance Forum Rep. 2 : 1– 27 [Google Scholar]
• Beath A , Christia F , Enikolopov R . 2013 . Empowering women: evidence from a field experiment in Afghanistan. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 107 : 540– 57 [Google Scholar]
• Benson PL , Karabenick SA , Lerner RM . 1976 . Pretty pleases: the effects of physical attractiveness, race, and sex on receiving help. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 12 : 409– 15 [Google Scholar]
• Benz M , Meier S . 2008 . Do people behave in experiments as in the field? Evidence from donations. Exp. Econ. 11 : 278– 81 [Google Scholar]
• Bertrand M , Karlan D , Mullainathan S , Shafir E , Zinman J . 2010 . What's advertising content worth? Evidence from a consumer credit marketing field experiment. Q. J. Econ. 125 : 263– 306 [Google Scholar]
• Bertrand M , Mullainathan S . 2004 . Are Emily and Greg more employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A field experiment on labor market discrimination. Am. Econ. Rev. 94 : 991– 1013 [Google Scholar]
• Besbris M , Faber JW , Rich P , Sharkey P . 2015 . Effect of neighborhood stigma on economic transitions. PNAS 112 : 4994– 98 [Google Scholar]
• Bettinger EP . 2012 . Paying to learn: the effect of financial incentives on elementary school test scores. Rev. Econ. Stat. 94 : 686– 98 [Google Scholar]
• Bigoni M , Bortolotti S , Casari M , Gambetta D , Pancotto F . 2016 . Amoral familism, social capital, or trust? The behavioural foundations of the Italian north–south divide. Econ. J. 126 : 1318– 41 [Google Scholar]
• Blommaert L , Coenders M , van Tubergen F . 2014 . Discrimination of Arabic-named applicants in the Netherlands: an Internet-based field experiment examining different phases in online recruitment procedures. Soc. Forces 92 : 957– 82 [Google Scholar]
• Bond RM , Fariss CJ , Jones JJ , Kramer AD , Marlow C . et al. 2012 . A 61-million-person experiment in social influence and political mobilization. Nature 489 : 295– 98 [Google Scholar]
• Bosch M , Carnero MA , Farré L . 2010 . Information and discrimination in the rental housing market: evidence from a field experiment. Reg. Sci. Urban Econ. 40 : 11– 19 [Google Scholar]
• Brearley HC . 1931 . Experimental sociology in the United States. Soc. Forces 10 : 196– 99 [Google Scholar]
• Butler DM , Broockman DE . 2011 . Do politicians racially discriminate against constituents? A field experiment on state legislators. Am. J. Political Sci. 55 : 463– 77 [Google Scholar]
• Butler DM , Nickerson DW . 2011 . Can learning constituency opinion affect how legislators vote? Results from a field experiment. Q. J. Political Sci. 6 : 55– 83 [Google Scholar]
• Camerer C . 2003 . Behavioral Game Theory: Experiments in Strategic Interaction New York, NY: Russell Sage Found. [Google Scholar]
• Cardenas J , Carpenter J . 2008 . Behavioural development economics: lessons from field labs in the developing world. J. Dev. Stud. 44 : 337– 64 [Google Scholar]
• Casey K , Glennerster R , Miguel E . 2012 . Reshaping institutions: evidence on external aid and local collective action. Q. J. Econ. 127 : 1755– 812 [Google Scholar]
• Castilla EJ , Benard S . 2010 . The paradox of meritocracy in organizations. Adm. Sci. Q. 55 : 543– 676 [Google Scholar]
• Centola D . 2010 . The spread of behavior in an online social network experiment. Science 329 : 1194– 97 [Google Scholar]
• Charness G , Gneezy U . 2009 . Incentives to exercise. Econometrica 77 : 909– 31 [Google Scholar]
• Chetty R , Hendren N , Katz LF . 2015 . The effects of exposure to better neighborhoods on children: new evidence from the moving to opportunity experiment. Work. Pap. 21156, NBER, Cambridge, MA [Google Scholar]
• Chong D , Junn J . 2011 . Politics from the perspective of minority populations. Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science JN Druckman, DP Green, JH Kuklinski, A Lupia, 602– 33 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Cialdini RB , Ascani K . 1976 . Test of a concession procedure for inducing verbal, behavioral, and further compliance with a request to give blood. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 61 : 295– 300 [Google Scholar]
• Cialdini RB , Vincent JE , Lewis SK , Catalan J , Wheeler D , Darby BL . 1975 . Reciprocal concessions procedure for inducing compliance: the door-in-the-face technique. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 31 : 206– 15 [Google Scholar]
• Clampet-Lundquist S , Massey DS . 2008 . Neighborhood effects on economic self-sufficiency: a reconsideration of the Moving to Opportunity experiment. Am. J. Sociol. 114 : 107– 43 [Google Scholar]
• Cohen J , Dupas P . 2010 . Free distribution or cost-sharing? Evidence from a randomized malaria prevention experiment. Q. J. Econ. 125 : 1– 40 [Google Scholar]
• Cole S , Giné X , Tobacman J , Topalova P , Townsend R , Vickery J . 2013 . Barriers to household risk management: evidence from India. Am. Econ. J. Appl. Econ. 5 : 104– 35 [Google Scholar]
• Cook TD , Shadish WR . 1994 . Social experiments: some developments over the past fifteen years. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 45 : 545– 80 [Google Scholar]
• Correll SJ , Benard S , Paik I . 2007 . Getting a job: is there a motherhood penalty?. Am. J. Sociol. 112 : 1297– 339 [Google Scholar]
• Cox D . 1958 . Planning of Experiments New York: Wiley [Google Scholar]
• Crépon B , Devoto F , Duflo E , Parienté W . 2011 . Impact of microcredit in rural areas of Morocco: evidence from a randomized evaluation. Work. Pap., Dep. Econ., MIT [Google Scholar]
• Cross H , Kenney GM , Mell J , Zimmerman W . 1990 . Employer hiring practices: differential treatment of Hispanic and Anglo job seekers. Tech. rep., Urban Inst., Washington, DC [Google Scholar]
• Deaton A . 2010 . Instruments, randomization, and learning about development. J. Econ. Lit. 48 : 424– 55 [Google Scholar]
• Dehejia R , Pop-Eleches C , Samii C . 2015 . From local to global: external validity in a fertility natural experiment. Work. Pap. 21459, NBER, Cambridge, MA [Google Scholar]
• Doob AN , Gross AE . 1968 . Status as an inhibitor of horn-honking responses. J. Soc. Psychol. 76 : 213– 18 [Google Scholar]
• Druckman JN , Green DP , Kuklinski JH , Lupia A . 2011 . Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Duflo E , Kremer M , Robinson J . 2008 . How high are rates of return to fertilizer? Evidence from field experiments in Kenya. Am. Econ. Rev. 98 : 482– 88 [Google Scholar]
• Duflo E , Kremer M , Robinson J . 2011 . Nudging farmers to use fertilizer: theory and experimental evidence from Kenya. Am. Econ. Rev. 101 : 2350– 90 [Google Scholar]
• Dunn EW , Aknin LB , Norton MI . 2008 . Spending money on others promotes happiness. Science 319 : 1687– 88 [Google Scholar]
• Dunning T . 2012 . Natural Experiments in the Social Sciences: A Design-Based Approach Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Dupas P . 2009 . What matters (and what does not) in households’ decision to invest in malaria prevention?. Am. Econ. Rev. 99 : 224– 30 [Google Scholar]
• Dupas P . 2011 . Do teenagers respond to HIV risk information? Evidence from a field experiment in Kenya. Am. Econ. J. Appl. Econ. 3 : 1– 34 [Google Scholar]
• Dupas P . 2014 . Short-run subsidies and long-run adoption of new health products: evidence from a field experiment. Econometrica 82 : 197– 228 [Google Scholar]
• Dupas P , Robinson J . 2011 . Savings constraints and microenterprise development: evidence from a field experiment in Kenya. Work. Pap. 14693, NBER, Cambridge, MA [Google Scholar]
• Emswiller T , Deaux K , Willits JE . 1971 . Similarity, sex, and requests for small favors. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 1 : 284– 91 [Google Scholar]
• Enos RD . 2014 . Causal effect of intergroup contact on exclusionary attitudes. PNAS 111 : 3699– 704 [Google Scholar]
• Enos RD , Fowler A , Vavreck L . 2014 . Increasing inequality: the effect of GOTV mobilization on the composition of the electorate. J. Polit. 76 : 273– 88 [Google Scholar]
• Fearon JD , Humphreys M , Weinstein JM . 2009 . Can development aid contribute to social cohesion after civil war? Evidence from a field experiment in post-conflict Liberia. Am. Econ. Rev. 99 : 287– 91 [Google Scholar]
• Fearon JD , Humphreys M , Weinstein JM . 2015 . How does development assistance affect collective action capacity? Results from a field experiment in post-conflict Liberia. Am. J. Political Sci. 109 : 450– 69 [Google Scholar]
• Fershtman C , Gneezy U . 2001 . Discrimination in a segmented society: an experimental approach. Q. J. Econ. 116 : 351– 77 [Google Scholar]
• Fisher RA . 1935 . The Design of Experiments New York: Hafner [Google Scholar]
• Fiszbein A , Schady N . 2009 . Conditional cash transfers: reducing present and future poverty. World Bank Policy Res. Rep., World Bank Washington, DC: [Google Scholar]
• Forbes GB , Gromoll HF . 1971 . The lost letter technique as a measure of social variables: some exploratory findings. Soc. Forces 50 : 113– 15 [Google Scholar]
• Freedman JL , Fraser SC . 1966 . Compliance without pressure: the foot-in-the-door technique. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 4 : 195– 202 [Google Scholar]
• Freese J , Peterson D . 2017 . Replication in social science. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 43. In press [Google Scholar]
• Fryer R . 2011 . Financial incentives and student achievement: evidence from randomized trials. Q. J. Econ. 126 : 1755– 98 [Google Scholar]
• Gaddis SM . 2015 . Discrimination in the credential society: an audit study of race and college selectivity in the labor market. Soc. Forces 93 : 1451– 79 [Google Scholar]
• Gaddis SM , Ghoshal R . 2015 . Arab American housing discrimination, ethnic competition, and the contact hypothesis. Ann. Am. Acad. Political Soc. Sci. 660 : 282– 99 [Google Scholar]
• Galster G , Constantine P . 1991 . Discrimination against female-headed households in rental housing: theory and exploratory evidence. Rev. Soc. Econ. 49 : 76– 100 [Google Scholar]
• Gantner L . 2007 . PROGRESA: An integrated approach to poverty alleviation in Mexico. Case Studies in Food Policy for Developing Countries: Policies for Health, Nutrition, Food Consumption, and Poverty P Pinstrup-Andersen, F Cheng, Vol 1 211– 20 Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Garfinkel H . 1967 . Studies in Ethnomethodology Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall [Google Scholar]
• Gelman A . 2014 . Experimental reasoning in social science. Field Experiments and Their Critics: Essays on the Uses and Abuses of Experimentation in the Social Sciences DL Teele 185– 95 New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Gerber AS . 2011 . Field experiments in political science. Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science JN Druckman, DP Green, JH Kuklinski, A Lupia 115– 38 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Gerber AS , Green DP . 2000 . The effects of canvassing, telephone calls, and direct mail on voter turnout: a field experiment. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 94 : 653– 63 [Google Scholar]
• Gerber AS , Green DP . 2012 . Field Experiments New York: Norton [Google Scholar]
• Gerber AS , Green DP , Larimer CW . 2008 . Social pressure and voter turnout: evidence from a large scale field experiment. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 102 : 33– 48 [Google Scholar]
• Gerber AS , Green DP , Shachar R . 2003 . Voting may be habit-forming: evidence from a randomized field experiment. Am. J. Political Sci. 47 : 540– 50 [Google Scholar]
• Gil-White F . 2004 . Ultimatum game with an ethnicity manipulation: results from Kohvdiin Bulgan Sum, Mongolia. Foundations of Human Sociality: Economic Experiments and Ethnographic Evidence from Fifteen Small-Scale Societies J Henrich, R Boyd, S Bowles, C Camerer, E Fehr, H Gintis, 260– 304 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Gilligan MJ , Pasquale BJ , Samii C . 2014 . Civil war and social cohesion: lab-in-the-field evidence from Nepal. Am. J. Political Sci. 58 : 604– 19 [Google Scholar]
• Giné X , Karlan D . 2014 . Group versus individual liability: short and long term evidence from Philippine-microcredit lending groups. J. Dev. Econ. 107 : 65– 83 [Google Scholar]
• Giné X , Karlan D , Zinman J . 2010 . Put your money where your butt is: a commitment contract for smoking cessation. Am. Econ. J. Appl. Econ. 213– 35 [Google Scholar]
• Gneezy U , List J , Price MK . 2012 . Toward an understanding of why people discriminate: evidence from a series of natural field experiments. Work. Pap. 17855, NBER, Cambridge, MA [Google Scholar]
• Gneezy U , Meier S , Rey-Biel P . 2011 . When and why incentives (don't) work to modify behavior. J. Econ. Perspect. 25 : 191– 210 [Google Scholar]
• Gneezy U , Rey-Biel P . 2014 . On the relative efficiency of performance pay and noncontingent incentives. J. Eur. Econ. Assoc. 12 : 62– 72 [Google Scholar]
• Gneezy U , Rustichini A . 2000 . A fine is a price. J. Legal Stud. 29 : 1– 17 [Google Scholar]
• Goel V . 2014 . Facebook tinkers with users’ emotions in news feed experiment, stirring outcry. New York Times , June 30 B1
• Gosnell HF . 1927 . Getting Out the Vote: An Experiment in the Stimulation of Voting Chicago: Chicago Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Green DP , Gerber A . 2008 . Get Out the Vote: How to Increase Voter Turnout Washington, DC: Brookings Inst. Press. 2nd ed. [Google Scholar]
• Green DP , Wong J . 2009 . Tolerance and the contact hypothesis: a field experiment. The Political Psychology of Democratic Citizenship 228– 46 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Greenberg D , Shroder M . 2004 . The Digest of Social Experiments. Washington, DC: Urban Inst. Press [Google Scholar]
• Grose CR . 2014 . Field experimental work on political institutions. Annu. Rev. Political Sci. 17 : 355– 70 [Google Scholar]
• Grossman G , Baldassarri D . 2012 . The impact of elections on cooperation: evidence from a lab in the field experiment in Uganda. Am. J. Political Sci. 56 : 964– 85 [Google Scholar]
• Grossman G , Paler L . 2015 . Using experiments to study political institutions. Handbook of Comparative Political Institutions J Gandhi, R Ruiz-Rufino 84– 97 London: Routledge [Google Scholar]
• Habyarimana J , Humphreys M , Posner DN , Weinstein JM . 2009 . Coethnicity: Diversity and the Dilemmas of Collective Action New York: Russell Sage Found. [Google Scholar]
• Harrison GW . 2013 . Field experiments and methodological intolerance. J. Econ. Methodol. 20 : 103– 17 [Google Scholar]
• Harrison GW , List JA . 2004 . Field experiments. J. Econ. Lit. 42 : 1009– 55 [Google Scholar]
• Hausman JA , Wise DA . 1985 . Social Experimentation Chicago: Chicago Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Heckman JJ . 1992 . Randomization and social policy evaluation. Evaluating Welfare and Training Programs CF Manski, I Garfinkel 201– 30 Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Heckman JJ . 1998 . Detecting discrimination. J. Econ. Perspect. 12 : 101– 16 [Google Scholar]
• Heckman JJ , Siegelman P . 1993 . The Urban Institute audit studies: their methods and findings. Clear and Convincing Evidence: Measurement of Discrimination in America M Fix, RJ Struyk 187– 258 Washington, DC: Urban Inst. Press [Google Scholar]
• Henrich J , Boyd R , Bowles S , Camerer C , Fehr E . et al. 2001 . In search of homo economicus: behavioral experiments in 15 small-scale societies. Am. Econ. Rev. 91 : 73– 78 [Google Scholar]
• Henrich J , Ensminger J , McElreath R , Barr A , Barrett C . et al. 2010 . Markets, religion, community size, and the evolution of fairness and punishment. Science 327 : 1480– 84 [Google Scholar]
• Henrich J , McElreath R , Barr A , Ensminger J , Barrett C . et al. 2006 . Costly punishment across human societies. Science 312 : 1767– 70 [Google Scholar]
• Henry PJ . 2008 . College sophomores in the laboratory redux: influences of a narrow data base on social psychology's view of the nature of prejudice. Psychol. Inq. 19 : 49– 71 [Google Scholar]
• Herberich DH , List JA , Price MK . 2011 . How many economists does it take to change a light bulb? A natural field experiment on technology adoption Work. Pap., Univ. Chicago [Google Scholar]
• Heyman J , Ariely D . 2004 . Effort for payment: a tale of two markets. Psychol. Sci. 15 : 787– 93 [Google Scholar]
• Holland J , Silva AS , Mace R . 2012 . Lost letter measure of variation in altruistic behaviour in 20 neighbourhoods. PLOS ONE 7 : e43294 [Google Scholar]
• Houlette MA , Gaertner SL , Johnson KM , Banker BS , Riek BM , Dovidio JF . 2004 . Developing a more inclusive social identity: an elementary school intervention. J. Soc. Issues 60 : 35– 55 [Google Scholar]
• Humphreys M , Sanchez de la Sierra R , van der Windt P . 2013 . Fishing, commitment, and communication: a proposal for comprehensive nonbinding research registration. Polit. Anal. 21 : 1– 20 [Google Scholar]
• Imbens G , Wooldridge J . 2009 . Recent developments in the econometrics of program evaluation. J. Econ. Lit. 47 : 5– 86 [Google Scholar]
• Isen AM , Levin PF . 1972 . Effect of feeling good on helping: cookies and kindness. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 21 : 384– 88 [Google Scholar]
• Jackson M , Cox DR . 2013 . The principles of experimental design and their application in sociology. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 39 : 27– 49 [Google Scholar]
• Jensen R , Miller N . 2008 . Giffen behavior and subsistence consumption. Am. Econ. Rev. 98 : 1553– 77 [Google Scholar]
• Kamenica E . 2012 . Behavioral economics and psychology of incentives. Annu. Rev. Econ. 4 : 427– 52 [Google Scholar]
• Karlan D . 2005 . Using experimental economics to measure social capital and predict financial decisions. Am. Econ. Rev. 95 : 1688– 99 [Google Scholar]
• Karlan D , Appel J . 2011 . More Than Good Intentions: Improving the Ways the World's Poor Borrow, Save, Farm, Learn, and Stay Healthy New York: Penguin [Google Scholar]
• Karlan D , Goldberg N . 2011 . Microfinance evaluation strategies: notes on methodology and findings. The Handbook of Microfinance B Armendáriz, M Labie 17– 58 London: World Scientific [Google Scholar]
• Karlan D , McConnell M , Mullainathan S , Zinman J . 2014 . Getting to the top of mind: how reminders increase saving. Manag. Sci. 62 : 3393– 3411 [Google Scholar]
• Karlan D , Osei-Akoto I , Osei R , Udry C . 2010 . Examining underinvestment in agriculture: measuring returns to capital and insurance. Work. Pap., Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab. https://www.poverty-action.org/sites/default/files/Panel3-3-Farmers-Returns-Capital.pdf [Google Scholar]
• Karlan D , Zinman J . 2011 . Microcredit in theory and practice: using randomized credit scoring for impact. Science 332 : 1278– 84 [Google Scholar]
• Keizer K , Lindenberg S , Steg L . 2008 . The spreading of disorder. Science 322 : 1681– 85 [Google Scholar]
• Kelly E , Moena P , Oakes J , Fan W , Okechukwu C . et al. 2014 . Changing work and work-family conflict: evidence from the work, family, and health network. Am. Sociol. Rev. 79 : 485– 516 [Google Scholar]
• Kling JR , Liebman JB , Katz LF . 2007 . Experimental analysis of neighborhood effects. Econometrica 75 : 83– 119 [Google Scholar]
• Kotran A . 2015 . Opower and utility partners save over eight terawatt-hours of energy power and utility partners save over eight terawatt-hours of energy. News release, May 21
• Kramer ADI , Guillory JE , Hancock JT . 2014 . Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks. PNAS 111 : 8788– 90 [Google Scholar]
• Kremer M . 2003 . Randomized evaluations of educational programs in developing countries: some lessons. Am. Econ. Rev. 93 : 102– 6 [Google Scholar]
• Kremer M , Brannen C , Glennerster R . 2013 . The challenge of education and learning in the developing world. Science 340 : 297– 300 [Google Scholar]
• Kremer M , Leino J , Miguel E , Zwane AP . 2011 . Spring cleaning: rural water impacts, valuation, and property rights institutions. Q. J. Econ. 126 : 145– 205 [Google Scholar]
• Kugelmass H . 2016 . “Sorry, I'm not accepting new patients”: an audit study of access to mental health care. J. Health Soc. Behav. 57 : 168– 83 [Google Scholar]
• Lacetera N , Macis M . 2010 . Do all material incentives for pro-social activities backfire? The response to cash and non-cash incentives for blood donations. J. Econ. Psychol. 31 : 738– 48 [Google Scholar]
• Lacetera N , Macis M , Slonim R . 2013 . Economic rewards to motivate blood donations. Science 340 : 927– 28 [Google Scholar]
• Landry CE , Lange A , List JA , Price MK , Rupp NG . 2010 . Is a donor in hand better than two in the bush? Evidence from a natural field experiment. Am. Econ. Rev. 100 : 958– 83 [Google Scholar]
• Langer EJ , Rodin J . 1976 . The effects of choice and enhanced responsibility for the aged: a field experiment in an institutional setting. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 34 : 191– 98 [Google Scholar]
• Lauster N , Easterbrook A . 2011 . No room for new families? A field experiment measuring rental discrimination against same-sex couples and single parents. Soc. Probl. 58 : 389– 409 [Google Scholar]
• Leuven E , Oosterbeek H , van der Klaauw B . 2010 . The effect of financial rewards on students’ achievement: evidence from a randomized experiment. J. Eur. Econ. Assoc. 8 : 1243– 65 [Google Scholar]
• Levine M , Prosser A , Evans D , Reicher S . 2005 . Identity and emergency intervention: how social group membership and inclusiveness of group boundaries shape helping behavior. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 31 : 443– 53 [Google Scholar]
• Levitt SD , List JA . 2009 . Field experiments in economics: the past, the present, and the future. Eur. Econ. Rev. 53 : 1– 18 [Google Scholar]
• Levitt SD , List JA , Neckerman S , Sadoff S . 2012 . The behavioralist goes to school: leveraging behavioral economics to improve educational performance. Work. Pap. 18165, NBER Cambridge, MA: [Google Scholar]
• List JA . 2007 . Field experiments: a bridge between lab and naturally occurring data. B.E. J. Econ. Anal. Policy 5 : 2 [Google Scholar]
• Lucas JW . 2003 . Theory-testing, generalization, and the problem of external validity. Sociol. Theory 21 : 236– 53 [Google Scholar]
• Ludwig J , Duncan GJ , Gennetian LA , Katz LF , Kessler RC . et al. 2013 . Long-term neighborhood effects on low-income families: evidence from moving to opportunity. Am. Econ. Rev. 103 : 226– 31 [Google Scholar]
• Ludwig J , Liebman JB , Kling JR , Duncan GJ , Katz LF . et al. 2008 . What can we learn about neighborhood effects from the moving to opportunity experiment?. Am. J. Sociol. 114 : 144– 88 [Google Scholar]
• Marwell G , Ames RE . 1979 . Experiments on the provision of public goods: resources, interest, group size, and the free-rider problem. Am. J. Sociol. 84 : 1335– 60 [Google Scholar]
• Massey DS , Lundy G . 2001 . Use of Black English and racial discrimination in urban housing markets: new methods and findings. Urban Aff. Rev. 36 : 452– 69 [Google Scholar]
• McDermott R . 2011 . Internal and external validity. Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science JN Druckman, DP Green, JH Kuklinski, A Lupia, 27– 40 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• McEwan PJ . 2015 . Improving learning in primary schools of developing countries: a meta-analysis of randomized experiments. Rev. Educ. Res. 85 : 353– 94 [Google Scholar]
• McNutt M . 2015 . Editorial retraction of Lacour & Green. Science 346 : 1366– 69 Science 348 : 1100 [Google Scholar]
• Merton RK . 1945 . Sociological theory. Am. J. Sociol. 50 : 462– 73 [Google Scholar]
• Michelson M , Nickerson DW . 2011 . Voter Mobilization Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Miguel E , Kremer M . 2004 . Worms: identifying impacts on education and health in the presence of treatment externalities. Econometrica 72 : 159– 217 [Google Scholar]
• Milgram S , Liberty HJ , Toledo R , Wackenhut J . 1986 . Response to intrusion into waiting lines. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 51 : 683– 89 [Google Scholar]
• Milgram S , Mann L , Hartner S . 1965 . The lost letter technique: a tool of social research. Public Opin. Q. 29 : 437– 38 [Google Scholar]
• Milkman KL , Akinola M , Chugh D . 2015 . What happens before? A field experiment exploring how pay and representation differentially shape bias on the pathway into organizations. J. Appl. Psychol. 100 : 1678– 712 [Google Scholar]
• Milkman KL , Beshears J , Choi JJ , Laibson D , Madrian BC . 2011 . Using implementation intentions prompts to enhance influenza vaccination rates. PNAS 108 : 10415– 20 [Google Scholar]
• Morgan S , Winship C . 2007 . Counterfactuals and Causal Inference Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Morton R , Williams K . 2010 . Experimental Political Science and the Study of Causality Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Moss-Racusin CA , Dovidio JF , Brescoll V , Graham MJ , Handelsman J . 2012 . Science faculty's subtle gender biases favor male students. PNAS 109 : 16474– 79 [Google Scholar]
• Munnell AH . 1986 . Lessons from the Income Maintenance Experiments Boston: Fed. Res. Bank of Boston [Google Scholar]
• Mutz DC . 2011 . Population-Based Survey Experiments Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Nagda BRA , Tropp LR , Paluck EL . 2006 . Looking back as we look ahead: integrating research, theory, and practice on intergroup relations. J. Soc. Issues 62 : 439– 51 [Google Scholar]
• Neumark D , Bank RJ , Nort KDV . 1996 . Sex discrimination in restaurant hiring: an audit study. Q. J. Econ. 111 : 915– 41 [Google Scholar]
• Nickerson DW . 2008 . Is voting contagious? Evidence from two field experiments. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 102 : 49– 57 [Google Scholar]
• Nolan JM , Kenefick J , Schultz PW . 2011 . Normative messages promoting energy conservation will be underestimated by experts unless you show them the data. Soc. Influence 6 : 169– 80 [Google Scholar]
• Nolan JM , Schultz PW , Cialdini RB , Goldstein NJ , Griskevicius V . 2008 . Normative social influence is underdetected. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 34 : 913– 23 [Google Scholar]
• Nosek B , Aarts A , Anderson J , Anderson C , Attridge P . et al. 2015a . Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science 349 : 943– 51 [Google Scholar]
• Nosek B , Alter G , Banks G , Borsboom D , Bowman S . et al. 2015b . Promoting an open research culture. Science 348 : 1422– 25 [Google Scholar]
• Olken B . 2007 . Monitoring corruption: evidence from a field experiment in Indonesia. J. Political Econ. 115 : 200– 49 [Google Scholar]
• Olken B . 2010 . Direct democracy and local public goods: evidence from a field experiment in Indonesia. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 104 : 243– 67 [Google Scholar]
• Pager D . 2003 . The mark of a criminal record. Am. J. Sociol. 108 : 937– 75 [Google Scholar]
• Pager D . 2007 . The use of field experiments for studies of employment discrimination: contributions, critiques, and directions for the future. Ann. Am. Acad. Political Soc. Sci. 609 : 104– 33 [Google Scholar]
• Pager D , Quillian L . 2005 . Walking the talk: what employers say versus what they do. Am. Sociol. Rev. 70 : 355– 80 [Google Scholar]
• Pager D , Western B , Bonikowski B . 2009 . Discrimination in a low-wage labor market: a field experiment. Am. Sociol. Rev. 74 : 777– 99 [Google Scholar]
• Paluck EL . 2009 . Reducing intergroup prejudice and conflict using the media: a field experiment in Rwanda. Interpers. Relat. Group Process. 96 : 574– 87 [Google Scholar]
• Paluck EL , Cialdini RB . 2014 . Field research methods. Handbook of Research Methods in Social and Personality Psychology HT Reis, CM Judd 81– 97 New York: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2nd ed.. [Google Scholar]
• Paluck EL , Green DP . 2009 . Prejudice reduction: what works? A review and assessment of research and practice. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 60 : 339– 67 [Google Scholar]
• Paluck EL , Shepherd H . 2012 . The salience of social referents: a field experiment on collective norms and harassment behavior in a school social network. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 103 : 899– 915 [Google Scholar]
• Paluck EL , Shepherd H , Aronow PM . 2016 . Changing climates of conflict: a social network driven experiment in 56 schools. PNAS 113 : 566– 71 [Google Scholar]
• Pedulla DS . 2016 . Penalized or protected? Gender and the consequences of non-standard and mismatched employment histories. Am. Sociol. Rev. 81 : 262– 89 [Google Scholar]
• Pettigrew TF . 1998 . Intergroup contact theory. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 49 : 65– 85 [Google Scholar]
• Riach PA , Rich J . 2002 . Field experiments of discrimination in the market place. Econ. J. 112 : 480– 518 [Google Scholar]
• Rodríguez-Planas N . 2012 . Longer-term impacts of mentoring, educational services, and learning incentives: evidence from a randomized trial in the United States. Am. Econ. J. Appl. Econ. 4 : 121– 39 [Google Scholar]
• Rondeau D , List JA . 2008 . Matching and challenge gifts to charity: evidence from laboratory and natural field experiments. Exp. Econ. 11 : 253– 67 [Google Scholar]
• Ross SL , Turner MA . 2005 . Housing discrimination in metropolitan America: explaining changes between 1989 and 2000. Soc. Probl. 52 : 152– 80 [Google Scholar]
• Rossi PH , Berk RA , Lenihan KJ . 1980 . Money, Work, and Crime: Experimental Evidence New York: Academic Press [Google Scholar]
• Rossi PH , Berk RA , Lenihan KJ . 1982 . Saying it wrong with figures: a comment on Zeisel. Am. J. Sociol. 88 : 390– 93 [Google Scholar]
• Rossi PH , Lyall KC . 1978 . An overview evaluation of the NIT experiment. Eval. Stud. Rev. 3 : 412– 28 [Google Scholar]
• Sabin N . 2015 . Modern microfinance: a field in flux. Social Finance Nicholls A, Paton R, Emerson J Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Salganik MJ , Dodds PS , Watts DJ . 2006 . Experimental study of inequality and unpredictability in an artificial cultural market. Science 311 : 854– 56 [Google Scholar]
• Sampson RJ . 2008 . Moving to inequality: neighborhood effects and experiments meet social structure. Am. J. Sociol. 114 : 189– 231 [Google Scholar]
• Sampson RJ . 2012 . Great American City: Chicago and the Enduring Neighborhood Effect Chicago, IL: Chicago Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Schuler SR , Hashemi SM , Badal SH . 1998 . Men's violence against women in rural Bangladesh: undermined or exacerbated by microcredit programmes?. Dev. Pract. 8 : 148– 57 [Google Scholar]
• Schultz P . 2004 . School subsidies for the poor: evaluating the Mexican Progresa poverty program. J. Dev. Econ. 74 : 199– 250 [Google Scholar]
• Shadish WR , Cook TD . 2009 . The renaissance of field experimentation in evaluating interventions. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 607– 29 [Google Scholar]
• Shadish WR , Cook TD , Campbell DT . 2002 . Experimental and Quasi-experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. New York: Houghton, Mifflin and Company [Google Scholar]
• Simpson BT , McGrimmon T , Irwin K . 2007 . Are blacks really less trusting than whites? Revisiting the race and trust question. Soc. Forces 86 : 525– 52 [Google Scholar]
• Sniderman PM , Grob DB . 1996 . Innovations in experimental design in attitude surveys. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 22 : 377– 99 [Google Scholar]
• Steinpreis RE , Anders KA , Ritzke D . 1999 . The impact of gender on the review of the curricula vitae of job applicants and tenure candidates: a national empirical study. Sex Roles 41 : 509– 28 [Google Scholar]
• Stutzer A , Goette L , Zehnder M . 2011 . Active decisions and prosocial behaviour: a field experiment on blood donations. Econ. J. 121 : 476– 93 [Google Scholar]
• Teele DL . 2014 . Reflections on the ethics of field experiments. Field Experiments and Their Critics: Essays on the Uses and Abuses of Experimentation in the Social Sciences DL Teele 115– 40 New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Thornton RL . 2008 . The demand for, and impact of, learning HIV status. Am. Econ. Rev. 98 : 1829– 63 [Google Scholar]
• Tilcsik A . 2011 . Pride and prejudice: employment discrimination against openly gay men in the United States. Am. J. Sociol. 117 : 586– 626 [Google Scholar]
• Travers J , Milgram S . 1969 . An experimental study of the small world problem. Sociometry 32 : 425– 43 [Google Scholar]
• Turner MA , Bednarz BA , Herbig C , Lee SJ . 2003 . Discrimination in metropolitan housing markets phase 2: Asians and Pacific Islanders Tech. rep., Urban Inst., Washington, DC [Google Scholar]
• Turner MA , Fix M , Struyk RJ . 1991 . Opportunities Denied, Opportunities Diminished: Racial Discrimination in Hiring Washington, DC: Urban Inst. Press [Google Scholar]
• Turner MA , Ross SL , Galster GC , Yinger J . 2002 . Discrimination in metropolitan housing markets: national results from phase 1 of the Housing Discrimination Study (HDS) Tech. rep., Urban Inst Washington, DC: [Google Scholar]
• Van Bavel JJ , Mende-Siedlecki P , Brady WJ , Reinero DA . 2016 . Contextual sensitivity in scientific reproducibility. PNAS 113 : 6454– 59 [Google Scholar]
• Van de Rijt A , Kang SM , Restivo M , Patil A . 2014 . Field experiments of success-breeds-success dynamics. PNAS 111 : 6934– 39 [Google Scholar]
• Van Der Merwe WG , Burns J . 2008 . What's in a name? Racial identity and altruism in post-apartheid South Africa. South Afr. J. Econ. 76 : 266– 75 [Google Scholar]
• Vermeersch C , Kremer M . 2005 . School Meals, Educational Achievement, and School Competition: Evidence from a Randomized Evaluation. New York: World Bank [Google Scholar]
• Volpp KG , Troxel AB , Pauly MV , Glick HA , Puig A . et al. 2009 . A randomized, controlled trial of financial incentives for smoking cessation. N. Engl. J. Med. 360 : 699– 709 [Google Scholar]
• Whitt S , Wilson RK . 2007 . The dictator game, fairness and ethnicity in postwar Bosnia. Am. J. Political Sci. 51 : 655– 68 [Google Scholar]
• Wienk RE , Reid CE , Simonson JC , Eggers FJ . 1979 . Measuring racial discrimination in American housing markets: the housing market practices survey. Tech. Rep. HUD-PDR-444(2), Dep. Hous. Urban Dev Washington, DC: [Google Scholar]
• Williams WM , Ceci SJ . 2015 . National hiring experiments reveal 2:1 faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track. PNAS 112 : 5360– 65 [Google Scholar]
• Yamagishi T . 2011 . Trust: The Evolutionary Game of Mind and Society New York: Springer [Google Scholar]
• Yamagishi T , Cook KS , Watabe M . 1998 . Uncertainty, trust, and commitment formation in the United States and Japan. Am. J. Sociol. 104 : 165– 94 [Google Scholar]
• Zeisel H . 1982 . Disagreement over the evaluation of a controlled experiment. Am. J. Sociol. 88 : 378– 89 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

• Article Type: Review Article

Most Read This Month

Most cited most cited rss feed, birds of a feather: homophily in social networks, social capital: its origins and applications in modern sociology, conceptualizing stigma, framing processes and social movements: an overview and assessment, organizational learning, the study of boundaries in the social sciences, assessing “neighborhood effects”: social processes and new directions in research, social exchange theory, culture and cognition, focus groups.

Learning Materials

• Business Studies
• Combined Science
• Computer Science
• Engineering
• English Literature
• Environmental Science
• Human Geography
• Macroeconomics
• Microeconomics
• Experiments

Think of the times when you were a child and wanted to try new things by asking 'what if?' .  We all loved our fun science projects in school - mixing baking soda with a clementine to make orange fizz, for example.

Create learning materials about Experiments with our free learning app!

• Instand access to millions of learning materials
• Flashcards, notes, mock-exams and more
• Everything you need to ace your exams

Millions of flashcards designed to help you ace your studies

• Cell Biology

What are experiments?

What is the difference between the positivist and interpretivist approaches in conducting experiments?

Are experiments primary or secondary research instruments?

Why is the location important for experiments?

What is a variable?

Provide examples of famous experiments.

What are the advantages of lab experiments?

What are the disadvantages of lab experiments?

What are the advantages of field experiments?

What are the disadvantages of field experiments?

What kind of data do experiments produce?

Review generated flashcards

to start learning or create your own AI flashcards

Start learning or create your own AI flashcards

• American Identity
• Beliefs in Society
• Crime and Deviance
• Cultural Identity
• Education With Methods in Context
• Families and Households
• Famous Sociologists
• Global Development
• Research Methods in Sociology
• Social Institutions
• Social Relationships
• Social Stratification
• Sociological Approach
• Sociology of Education
• Sociology of Family
• Stratification and Differentiation
• Theories and Methods
• American Sociological Association
• Case Studies
• Ethnography
• Field Research
• Founders of Sociology
• Functionalism
• Interpretivism
• Longitudinal Studies
• Observation
• Official Statistics
• Postmodernism
• Questionnaire
• Research Considerations
• Research Design
• Social Action Theory
• Social Policy
• Sociological Imagination
• Sociological Research Methods
• Sociological Theories
• Sociology as a Science
• Sources of Data
• Types of Data
• Value Neutrality
• Values in Research
• What is the Study of Sociology?
• Work Poverty And Welfare

The 'what if?' question followed by an action to trace cause and effect is classified as an experiment.

' What if I pour water on the sand? ' would be an experiment question for a young natural scientist. ' What if I disobeyed my teacher? ' would be an experiment question to a young social scientist.

In the Research Design article, we briefly touched upon the nature of the experimental research design . Researchers begin their investigations with a hypothesis that must be tested.

Once we have a hypothesis, we can test it using an experiment. Therefore, we will be looking at:

• The definition of experiments, what they are and the types of experiments there are
• Laboratory experiments, famous examples and their advantages and disadvantages
• Field experiments, famous examples and their advantages and disadvantages
• The differences between laboratory and field experiments
• Ethnographic research

There's a lot to get through, so let's start!

Experiments in Sociology: examples and types

An experiment is a research method used in experimental research design. It uses the scientific method and seeks to establish a cause-effect relationship between two variables by testing a hypothesis . In sociology , we test the relationship between social phenomena.

Experiments typically produce quantitative results. However, if it is a social experiment, it could also yield qualitative data.

One of the key factors that affect experiments is location. An experiment can either occur in controlled laboratory conditions or the field .

Norman Triplett conducted one of the first known experiments in 1895, focusing on social facilitation. He observed that cyclists tend to perform better when cycling in the presence of someone else, as opposed to cycling alone. He recreated this effect in his laboratory experiment, where he demonstrated how children complete a task faster when working in pairs than when working individually.

However, before we consider the differences in experiment locations, we need to assess the extent to which researchers exercise control over them. Researchers distinguish between natural and controlled experiments.

A natural experiment is an empirical or observational study in which researchers do not artificially manipulate the variables of interest. Instead, they can be influenced by nature or factors outside the researchers' control.

On the other hand, a controlled experiment is one in which the independent variable is manually manipulated to see if it will influence the dependent variable and cause it to change. This eliminates any alternative explanations of observed relationships and traces a direct cause-effect .

We will now look at two types of experiments: laboratory and field experiments.

Laboratory Experiments in Sociology

These are experiments that take place in controlled environments and aim to use the scientific method to test a specific hypothesis. This is then used to find a cause-and-effect relationship between two variables.

Proponents of the positivist research philosophy advocate controlled laboratory experiments because that is the only way to ensure that the relationship being tested is not affected by any external factors.

They define the relationship between factors using mathematical terms: dependent and independent variables.

A variable is a factor in an experiment that may be subject to change.

• A dependent variable is the subject of the study, for example, fluency in Spanish.
• An independent variable is being manipulated to see the effect on the dependent variable. For example, using a native Spanish speaker and a native English speaker to teach Spanish to ascertain if there is a difference between Spanish language attainment under different teachers.

Randomised controlled trials

The most well-known example of lab experiments is randomised controlled trials (RCTs), which are commonly used to test the effectiveness of drugs. Participants are randomly selected and divided into those who received the drug (the treatment/intervention group) and those who got a placebo (the control group).

Researchers record participants' health conditions before and after the experiment to see whether there is any difference in outcome between the two groups. This allows a high degree of confidence in determining if there is a causal relationship between taking the drug and getting better or worse (for instance, if the drug does not work and produces side effects).

Laboratory experiments in social research

It is difficult to use laboratory experiments in social research to conduct experiments . Social experiments differ because they study social rather than biological phenomena. T he nature and context of social experiments are also different from natural science experiments like the drug test described above.

There is an ongoing debate in the scientific community about the extent to which it is possible to recreate authentic social scenarios in controlled environments. Therefore, social scientists frequently lean towards field experiments.

Famous sociology experiments in the lab

We will go through some famous sociological experiments.

Milgram (1963) and obedience

Milgram's obedience experiment (1963) is a famous example of laboratory conditions in social research. The experiment divided participants into 'learner' and 'teacher' groups, where the 'learners' were Milgram's confederates and purposely gave wrong answers. The test was to see how far the 'teachers' (the participants) would go to be obedient - even if it involved punishing the learners by subjecting them to (fake) electric shocks.

The result of the initial experiment was that 65 percent of participants (i.e. teachers) went on to administer the highest level of electric shock - 450 volts. All of the participants continued to 300 volts. This experiment took place in Milgram's lab at Yale University.

Asch (1951) and conformity

Another illustration of a sociological experiment conducted in a lab is Solomon Asch's conformity experiment (1951). He was interested in the extent to which the social pressure of a majority could make a person conform. He invited 50 people to take part in his vision test, demonstrated in the image below, and asked them to assess in groups whether the line on the left is the same length as line A, line B or line C.

The participants did not know that Asch's associates were purposefully giving wrong answers among them. Asch wanted to see if the actual participants would change their opinion in line with others. 75 percent of the participants conformed to the popular opinion once or more, even though they knew that the answers were incorrect. This experiment took place in Asch's lab at Swarthmore College in Pennsylvania.

Laboratory experiments in Sociology: Advantages and Disadvantages

It is important to understand not only the strengths of a research method but also its shortcomings. Read below for an outline of the advantages and disadvantages of laboratory experiments in sociology .

Advantages of laboratory experiments in Sociology

There is control over the experiment and the ability to isolate the targeted variables.

Researchers can trace 'cause and effect' relationships.

They have high degrees of reliability as the lab conditions can be replicated.

Positivist sociologists favour them as they use the scientific method.

Disadvantages of laboratory experiments in Sociology

The lab environment is not conducive to people acting authentically; they could put on a facade if they know they are being studied. This is called a 'demand characteristic' and could render the results invalid.

Participants could give answers they think the researcher wants to hear because they fear being ridiculed or “letting the researcher down” by producing “incorrect” answers. This is also an example of a demand characteristic.

Behaviour is rarely caused by a single factor, so isolating one variable may not be possible or useful.

Some lab experiments are morally and ethically questionable. For example, the method and results of Milgram's obedience experiment were controversial due to the distress caused to the participants.

In social research, some sociologists prefer conducting field experiments. We will now consider these.

Field Experiments in Sociology

Field experiments are conducted in real-world social scenarios. They emerged due to the interpretivism critique of lab experiments, which argues that authentic social interaction cannot be reproduced in a lab.

Field experiments in social research

Let's look at examples of sociological field experiments.

Zimbardo (1971)

A great example of a social experiment conducted in the field was one we touched upon briefly in the Research Considerations article - Zimbardo's Stanford prison experiment (1971). Zimbardo invited volunteers to be prisoners and guards in the mock prison he created. Participants were randomly assigned roles of 'prisoner' and 'guard' and studied to test why prison guards can be brutal with prisoners - namely, whether they are naturally sadistic or are influenced by the environment.

Zimbardo found that even though the participants were thoroughly vetted for behaviour/anger issues, the 'guards' started to treat the 'prisoners' aggressively and abusively from early on. The experiment showed how easily people would conform to the roles they are expected to play in society.

UK DWP (2010)

A more recent example was commissioned by the UK's Department for Work and Pension (DWP) and conducted by a team of researchers from the National Centre for Social Research in 2010. The experiment's objective was to figure out if employers are biased against vacancy candidates with ethnic minority names.

They sent applications for 987 real job vacancies across the UK under names commonly associated with ethnic minorities. For each job, they sent three applications with equivalent background and qualifications: one used a 'white' name and the other two had names from different ethnic origins.

The results were that ethnic minorities faced considerable name discrimination in the hiring process - despite having identical CVs and cover letters to the majority white candidates, they needed to send 74 percent more applications to secure an interview.

Field Experiments in Sociology: Advantages and Disadvantages

Field experiments have their benefits but are not always suitable. Read below for an outline of the advantages and disadvantages of field experiments in sociology.

Advantages of field experiments in Sociology

The researcher is more likely to see the ' real deal' instead of an act as the scenarios are authentic.

Social interactions show genuine behaviours, which can help researchers consider other factors that would not have been discovered in a controlled lab setting.

They are favoured by interpretivist sociologists.

Disadvantages of field experiments in Sociology

Researchers cannot control the environment where their experiment occurs, which could mean that there are other influencing factors.

It is ethically questionable to conduct field experiments if the subjects are unaware that they are being studied.

Ethnographic Research

We will briefly consider ethnographic research and how it may be helpful in sociological research.

Ethnographic research is an immersive methodology whereby a researcher collects data whilst being part of the community under investigation. They do so with the goal of producing a narrative account of that particular community, against a theoretical backdrop.

One could argue that ethnographic research is a form of a natural experiment .

The first ethnographic researchers were anthropologists - they joined the community, learned the language, and noted their observations. Some researchers such as Margaret Mead also conducted interviews and psychological tests.

Characteristics of ethnographic research:

small-scale immersive fieldwork

produces qualitative data

includes primary data from observations, case studies or focus groups

includes secondary data from diaries, documents or letters

Evaluation of ethnographic research

The immersion of the research process allows for in-depth insights from an ' insider ' perspective. Research subjects may be more inclined to open up or behave naturally if they do not perceive the researcher as an outsider force.

The high validity of findings stems from studying behaviour in natural settings.

However, the quality of such research can be called into question due to the findings being subject to the researchers' interpretation , which is likely to bring bias into the investigation. M ore importantly, the findings may not always accurately reflect the authenticity of social interactions .

At the beginning of the article, we pointed out that experiments are typically considered as primary sources of data . However, if you are using someone else's raw data from their experiment, you are using it as a secondary source.

Experiments - Key Takeaways

• Experiments test the researchers' hypotheses by trying to establish a causal relationship between the independent and dependent variables.
• Milgram's obedience and Aschs' conformity experiments are famous examples of social experiments in controlled conditions.
• Zimbardo 's Stanford Prison experiment and research into discrimination in the job application process by the National Centre for Social Research show how social experiments can occur naturally in the field.
• There are advantages and disadvantages of using both lab and field experiments. A researcher should be able to assess which would be most suitable for their research needs.
• Ethnographic research could also be a form of a natural experiment as it involves immersive fieldwork.

Flashcards in Experiments 26

In sociological research, an experiment aims to test a hypothesis by identifying 'cause and effect' between social phenomena. It is used to eliminate any alternative explanations of observed relationships.

Positivists argue that experiments should be conducted according to the rigorous standards of the scientific methods and should be in a lab. Interpretivists argue that it is impossible to recreate authentic social scenarios in a lab;  therefore, they prefer to study people 'in the field'.

Experiments are typically conducted by the researchers first hand, which makes their data primary. However, if a researcher is using the outputs of someone else's experiment - that makes their data secondary.

In the lab, researchers are able to control the environment and thus eliminate the possibility that other variables will impact the tested relationship.  In the field, researchers have no control over the environment. It is important for a researcher to consider what type of location is the most suitable.

Variable is defined as a factor in an experiment that may be subject to change. There are two types of variables: dependent and independent variables.

Any of the following answers are correct:

• Milgram's obedience experiment 
• Aschs' Conformity    experiment
• Zimbardo's Stanford Prison experiment

Learn with 26 Experiments flashcards in the free StudySmarter app

We have 14,000 flashcards about Dynamic Landscapes.

Already have an account? Log in

Frequently Asked Questions about Experiments

What is an experiment in social research?

In social research, an experiment tests a hypothesis. Laboratory and field experiments are two types of experiments in social research.

What does an experiment mean?

In sociological research, an experiment uses the scientific method and seeks to establish a cause-effect relationship between two variables by testing a hypothesis. In sociology, we test the relationship between social phenomena. 

What is a field experiment in sociology?

Field experiments are those conducted in real-world social scenarios in order to access the most authentic social interaction. 

What are the two types of experiments in sociology? 

The two types of experiments in sociology are laboratory and field experiments.

What is an example of experiment in sociology?

An example of an experiment in sociology was commissioned by the UK's Department for Work and Pension (DWP). It was conducted by a team of researchers from the National Centre for Social Research. The experiment's objective was to determine if employers are biased against vacancy candidates with ethnic minority names.  

Discover learning materials with the free StudySmarter app

About StudySmarter

StudySmarter is a globally recognized educational technology company, offering a holistic learning platform designed for students of all ages and educational levels. Our platform provides learning support for a wide range of subjects, including STEM, Social Sciences, and Languages and also helps students to successfully master various tests and exams worldwide, such as GCSE, A Level, SAT, ACT, Abitur, and more. We offer an extensive library of learning materials, including interactive flashcards, comprehensive textbook solutions, and detailed explanations. The cutting-edge technology and tools we provide help students create their own learning materials. StudySmarter’s content is not only expert-verified but also regularly updated to ensure accuracy and relevance.

StudySmarter Editorial Team

Team Sociology Teachers

• 12 minutes reading time
• Checked by StudySmarter Editorial Team

Study anywhere. Anytime.Across all devices.

Create a free account to save this explanation..

Save explanations to your personalised space and access them anytime, anywhere!

By signing up, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and the Privacy Policy of StudySmarter.

Sign up to highlight and take notes. It’s 100% free.

Chapter 2: Sociological Research

Research methods: experiments, learning outcomes.

• Describe and give examples of how sociologists utilize experiments

Experiments

You’ve probably tested some of your own theories: “If I study at night and review in the morning, I’ll improve my retention skills.” Or, “If I stop drinking soda, I’ll feel better.” Cause and effect. If this, then that. Causation is difficult to establish, so even if we seem to find evidence in our own lives that appears to prove our hypotheses, this is not sociological research nor is it evidence of causation. Sociologists set up specific studies in controlled environments in order to examine relationships between variables. Some studies are correlational, meaning they examine how two variables change together, while others are experimental, meaning they use controlled conditions to attempt to explain cause and effect. The primary difference between our everyday observations and sociological research is the systematic approach researchers use to collect data.

E xperiments aim to measure the relationship of the independent variable to the dependent variable, and the researcher or research team will attempt to control all other variables in the experimental process. This is often done in a lab-based setting, but can also be done as a field experiment. As discussed in the section on ethics, there are many considerations to address before  any  experimental work can occur. Sociologists must obtain approval from a review board (sometimes called an Internal Review Board or IRB) before they commence any type of sociological experiment.

Lab Settings

In a lab setting, the research can be controlled so that perhaps more data can be recorded in a certain amount of time. To set up a lab-based experiment, sociologists create artificial situations that allow them to manipulate variables. Classically, the sociologist selects a set of people with similar characteristics, such as age, class, race, or education. Those people are divided into two groups. One is the experimental group and the other is the control group. The experimental group is exposed to the independent variable(s) and the control group is not. This is similar to pharmaceutical drug trials in which the experimental group is given the test drug and the control group is given a placebo or sugar pill. To test the benefits of tutoring, for example, the sociologist might expose the experimental group of students to tutoring while the control group does not receive tutoring. Then both groups would be tested for differences in performance to see if tutoring had an effect on the experimental group of students. As you can imagine, in a case like this, the researcher would not want to jeopardize the accomplishments of either group of students, so the setting would be somewhat artificial. The test would not be for a grade reflected on their permanent record, for example.

The Stanford Prison Experiment is perhaps one of the most famous sociological experiments ever conducted. In 1971, 24 healthy, middle-class male university students were selected to take part in a simulated jail environment to examine the effects of social setting and social roles on individual psychology and behavior. They were randomly divided into 12 guards and 12 prisoners. The prisoner subjects were arrested at home and transported blindfolded to the simulated prison in the basement of the psychology building on the campus of Stanford University. Within a day of arriving the prisoners and the guards began to display signs of trauma and sadism, respectively. After some prisoners revolted by blockading themselves in their cells, the guards resorted to using increasingly humiliating and degrading tactics to control the prisoners through psychological manipulation. The experiment had to be abandoned after only six days because the abuse had gotten out of hand (Haney, Banks, and Zimbardo, 1973).

While the insights into the social dynamics of authoritarianism it generated were fascinating, the Stanford Prison Experiment also serves as an example of the ethical issues that emerge when experimenting on human subjects and the types of emotional harm that subjects can endure as a result of participating in research. Additionally, this classic experiment, which is cited in most sociology and psychology textbooks, has recently been called out as being “theatre” rather than rigorous science. Some social scientists have even provided evidence to show that Zimbardo and his team coached research subjects into being cruel (guards) and dramatic (prisoners). The experiment has also been criticized for its small sample size and unrepresentative sample population.

Natural or Field-Based Experiments

In a natural or field-based experiment, the generation of data cannot be controlled, but the information might be considered more accurate since it was collected without interference or intervention by the researcher. As a research method, either type of sociological experiment is useful for testing if-then statements: if a particular thing happens, then another particular thing will result.

Sociologists Devah Pager, Bruce Western, and Bart Bonikowski wanted to examine discrimination in the low-wage job market. They recruited white, black, and Latino “testers,” who were assigned equivalent resumés and who were matched on a variety of characteristics such as age, education, physical appearance, and interpersonal skills. The testers applied to real job openings and recorded responses from employers. Because black and white testers were sent to the same firms, and testers were matched on a wide variety of characteristics, “much of the unexplained variation that confounds residual estimates of discrimination [was] experimentally controlled”  [1]  The testers were college-educated males that comprised field teams that included a white, Latino, and black tester; the Latino testers spoke in unaccented English and were U.S. citizens of Puerto Rican descent and claimed no Spanish language ability. They also examined the effect of a criminal record (felony drug offense) for different racial groups in job applications, building upon Pager’s research in 2003. Some resumés included a checked box to indicate a felony conviction and also listed prison labor as part of the applicant’s employment history. The teams applied for 340 real entry-level jobs throughout New York City over nine months in 2004.

As with many of the most insightful sociological studies, Pager, Western & Bonikowski included qualitative data based on the testers’ interactions with employers, which provided a rich supplement to the empirical data acquired through this field experiment. Like Matthew Desmond’s multi-method approach to evictions (empirical— secondary resources; interpretive—ethnography), we see a similar approach here (empirical—field experiment; interpretive—testers’ narratives of interactions with employers). In this study, blacks were only half as likely to receive a callback or job offer, and whites, blacks, and Latinos with clean criminal backgrounds were no more likely to receive a callback as a white applicant just released from prison. Moreover, the testers did not perceive any signs of clear prejudice (Pager, Western, & Bonikowski, 2009).

Sociologists have long been interested in inequality and discrimination. Read the study below to see how one sociology professor sent her students to the field.

An Experiment in Action

Figure 1. Sociologist Frances Heussenstamm conducted an experiment to explore the correlation between traffic stops and race-based bumper stickers. This issue of racial profiling remains a hot-button topic today. (Photo courtesy of dwightsghost/flickr)

A real-life example will help illustrate the experiment process. In 1971, Frances Heussenstamm, a sociology professor at California State University, Los Angeles, had a theory about police prejudice. To test her theory she conducted an experiment. She chose fifteen students from three ethnic backgrounds: black, white, and Latino. She chose students who routinely drove to and from campus along Los Angeles freeway routes, and who’d had perfect driving records for longer than a year. Those were her control variables—students, good driving records, same commute route. These students signed all had safe, up-to-date cars and signed a pledge to drive safely.

Next, she placed a Black Panther bumper sticker on each car. That sticker, a representation of a social value, was the independent variable. Founded in Oakland, California in 1966, the Black Panthers were a revolutionary African-American group actively fighting racism. Heussenstamm asked the students to follow their normal driving patterns. She wanted to see whether seeming to support the Black Panthers would change how these good drivers were treated by the police patrolling the highways (the dependent variable).

The first citation, for an incorrect lane change, was made two hours after the experiment began. One participant was pulled over three times in three days. He quit the study. After seventeen days, the fifteen drivers had collected a total of thirty-three traffic citations and the funding to pay traffic fines had run out. The experiment was halted (Heussenstamm 1971).

Think It Over

• Do the findings in the Pager, Western & Bonikowski field experiment surprise you? Why or why not? In what ways can studies about discrimination inform public policy?
• What kinds of ethical issues are present in Heussenstamm’s experiment? Were some students at greater risk than others? How do you think the experiences of each group (black, white, and Latino) differed? Do you think gender would influence the interaction between student and police officer?
• Imagine your sociology professor asked you to place a “Black Lives Matter” bumper sticker on your vehicle and asked you to sign an informed consent before participating in the study. Would you do it? Why or why not? How does geographic location and personal identity affect one’s experience and potential risk factors?
• Pager, D., Western, B. and B. Bonikowski. 2009. “Discrimination in a Low-Wage Labor Market:  A Field Experiment.” American Sociological Review. Vol. 74 (October:  777-799). ↵

• 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

• 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.

Social Psychology: Definition, Theories, Scope, & Examples

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:

Social psychology is the scientific study of how people’s thoughts, feelings, beliefs, intentions, and goals are constructed within a social context by the actual or imagined interactions with others.

It, therefore, looks at human behavior as influenced by other people and the conditions under which social behavior and feelings occur.

Baron, Byrne, and Suls (1989) define social psychology as “the scientific field that seeks to understand the nature and causes of individual behavior in social situations” (p. 6).

Topics examined in social psychology include the self-concept , social cognition, attribution theory , social influence, group processes, prejudice and discrimination , interpersonal processes, aggression, attitudes , and stereotypes .

Social psychology operates on several foundational assumptions. These fundamental beliefs provide a framework for theories, research, and interpretations.

• Individual and Society Interplay : Social psychologists assume an interplay exists between individual minds and the broader social context. An individual’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are continuously shaped by social interactions, and in turn, individuals influence the societies they are a part of.
• Behavior is Contextual : One core assumption is that behavior can vary significantly based on the situation or context. While personal traits and dispositions matter, the circumstances or social environment often play a decisive role in determining behavior.
• Objective Reality is Difficult to Attain : Our perceptions of reality are influenced by personal beliefs, societal norms, and past experiences. Therefore, our understanding of “reality” is subjective and can be biased or distorted.
• Social Reality is Constructed : Social psychologists believe that individuals actively construct their social world . Through processes like social categorization, attribution, and cognitive biases, people create their understanding of others and societal norms.
• People are Social Beings with a Need to Belong : A fundamental assumption is the inherent social nature of humans. People have an innate need to connect with others, form relationships, and belong to groups. This need influences a wide range of behaviors and emotions.
• Attitudes Influence Behavior : While this might seem straightforward, it’s a foundational belief that our attitudes (combinations of beliefs and feelings) can and often do drive our actions. However, it’s also understood that this relationship can be complex and bidirectional.
• People Desire Cognitive Consistency : This is the belief that people are motivated to maintain consistency in their beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors. Cognitive dissonance theory , which posits that people feel discomfort when holding conflicting beliefs and are motivated to resolve this, is based on this assumption.
• People are Motivated to See Themselves in a Positive Light : The self plays a central role in social psychology. It’s assumed that individuals are generally motivated to maintain and enhance a positive self-view.
• Behavior Can be Predicted and Understood : An underlying assumption of any science, including social psychology, is that phenomena (in this case, human behavior in social contexts) can be studied, understood, predicted, and potentially influenced.
• Cultural and Biological Factors are Integral : Though earlier social psychology might have been criticized for neglecting these factors, contemporary social psychology acknowledges the roles of both biology (genes, hormones, brain processes) and culture (norms, values, traditions) in shaping social behavior.

Early Influences

Aristotle believed that humans were naturally sociable, a necessity that allows us to live together (an individual-centered approach), whilst Plato felt that the state controlled the individual and encouraged social responsibility through social context (a socio-centered approach).

Hegel (1770–1831) introduced the concept that society has inevitable links with the development of the social mind. This led to the idea of a group mind, which is important in the study of social psychology.

Lazarus & Steinthal wrote about Anglo-European influences in 1860. “Volkerpsychologie” emerged, which focused on the idea of a collective mind.

It emphasized the notion that personality develops because of cultural and community influences, especially through language, which is both a social product of the community as well as a means of encouraging particular social thought in the individual. Therefore Wundt (1900–1920) encouraged the methodological study of language and its influence on the social being.

Early Texts

Texts focusing on social psychology first emerged in the 20th century. McDougall published the first notable book in English in 1908 (An Introduction to Social Psychology), which included chapters on emotion and sentiment, morality, character, and religion, quite different from those incorporated in the field today.

He believed social behavior was innate/instinctive and, therefore, individual, hence his choice of topics.  This belief is not the principle upheld in modern social psychology, however.

Allport’s work (1924) underpins current thinking to a greater degree, as he acknowledged that social behavior results from interactions between people.

He also took a methodological approach, discussing actual research and emphasizing that the field was a “science … which studies the behavior of the individual in so far as his behavior stimulates other individuals, or is itself a reaction to this behavior” (1942: p. 12).

His book also dealt with topics still evident today, such as emotion, conformity, and the effects of an audience on others.

Murchison (1935) published The first handbook on social psychology was published by Murchison in 1935.  Murphy & Murphy (1931/37) produced a book summarizing the findings of 1,000 studies in social psychology.  A text by Klineberg (1940) looked at the interaction between social context and personality development. By the 1950s, several texts were available on the subject.

Journal Development

• 1950s – Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology

• 1963 – Journal of Personality, British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology

• 1965 – Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

• 1971 – Journal of Applied Social Psychology, European Journal of Social Psychology

• 1975 – Social Psychology Quarterly, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

• 1982 – Social Cognition

• 1984 – Journal of Social and Personal Relationships

Early Experiments

There is some disagreement about the first true experiment, but the following are certainly among some of the most important.

Triplett (1898) applied the experimental method to investigate the performance of cyclists and schoolchildren on how the presence of others influences overall performance – thus, how individuals are affected and behave in the social context.

By 1935, the study of social norms had developed, looking at how individuals behave according to the rules of society. This was conducted by Sherif (1935).

Lewin et al. then began experimental research into leadership and group processes by 1939, looking at effective work ethics under different leadership styles.

Later Developments

Much of the key research in social psychology developed following World War II, when people became interested in the behavior of individuals when grouped together and in social situations. Key studies were carried out in several areas.

Some studies focused on how attitudes are formed, changed by the social context, and measured to ascertain whether a change has occurred.

Amongst some of the most famous works in social psychology is that on obedience conducted by Milgram in his “electric shock” study, which looked at the role an authority figure plays in shaping behavior.  Similarly,  Zimbardo’s prison simulation notably demonstrated conformity to given roles in the social world.

Wider topics then began to emerge, such as social perception, aggression, relationships, decision-making, pro-social behavior, and attribution, many of which are central to today’s topics and will be discussed throughout this website.

Thus, the growth years of social psychology occurred during the decades following the 1940s.

The scope of social psychology is vast, reflecting the myriad ways social factors intertwine with individual cognition and behavior.

Its principles and findings resonate in virtually every area of human interaction, making it a vital field for understanding and improving the human experience.

• Interpersonal Relationships : This covers attraction, love, jealousy, friendship, and group dynamics. Understanding how and why relationships form and the factors that contribute to their maintenance or dissolution is central to this domain.
• Attitude Formation and Change : How do individuals form opinions and attitudes? What methods can effectively change them? This scope includes the study of persuasion, propaganda, and cognitive dissonance.
• Social Cognition : This examines how people process, store, and apply information about others. Areas include social perception, heuristics, stereotypes, and attribution theories.
• Social Influence : The study of conformity, compliance, obedience, and the myriad ways individuals influence one another falls within this domain.
• Group Dynamics : This entails studying group behavior, intergroup relations, group decision-making processes, leadership, and more. Concepts like groupthink and group polarization emerge from this area.
• Prejudice and Discrimination : Understanding the roots of bias, racism, sexism, and other forms of prejudice, as well as exploring interventions to reduce them, is a significant focus.
• Self and Identity : Investigating self-concept, self-esteem, self-presentation, and the social construction of identity are all part of this realm.
• Prosocial Behavior and Altruism : Why do individuals sometimes help others, even at a cost to themselves? This area delves into the motivations and conditions that foster cooperative and altruistic behavior.
• Aggression : From understanding the underlying causes of aggressive behavior to studying societal factors that exacerbate or mitigate aggression, this topic seeks to dissect the nature of hostile actions.
• Cultural and Cross-cultural Dimensions : As societies become more interconnected, understanding cultural influences on behavior, cognition, and emotion is crucial. This area compares and contrasts behaviors across different cultures and societal groups.
• Environmental and Applied Settings : Social psychology principles find application in health psychology, environmental behavior, organizational behavior, consumer behavior, and more.
• Social Issues : Social psychologists might study the impact of societal structures on individual behavior, exploring topics like poverty, urban stress, and crime.
• Education : Principles of social psychology enhance teaching methods, address issues of classroom dynamics, and promote effective learning.
• Media and Technology : In the digital age, understanding the effects of media consumption, the dynamics of online communication, and the formation of online communities is increasingly relevant.
• Law : Insights from social psychology inform areas such as jury decision-making, eyewitness testimony, and legal procedures.
• Health : Concepts from social psychology are employed to promote health behaviors, understand doctor-patient dynamics, and tackle issues like addiction.

Example Theories

Allport (1920) – social facilitation.

Allport introduced the notion that the presence of others (the social group) can facilitate certain behavior.

It was found that an audience would improve an actor’s performance in well-learned/easy tasks but leads to a decrease in performance on newly learned/difficult tasks due to social inhibition.

Bandura (1963) Social Learning Theory

Bandura introduced the notion that behavior in the social world could be modeled. Three groups of children watched a video where an adult was aggressive towards a ‘bobo doll,’ and the adult was either just seen to be doing this, was rewarded by another adult for their behavior, or was punished for it.

Children who had seen the adult rewarded were found to be more likely to copy such behavior.

Festinger (1950) –  Cognitive Dissonance

Festinger, Schacter, and Black brought up the idea that when we hold beliefs, attitudes, or cognitions which are different, then we experience dissonance – this is an inconsistency that causes discomfort.

We are motivated to reduce this by either changing one of our thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes or selectively attending to information that supports one of our beliefs and ignores the other (selective exposure hypothesis).

Dissonance occurs when there are difficult choices or decisions or when people participate in behavior that is contrary to their attitude. Dissonance is thus brought about by effort justification (when aiming to reach a modest goal), induced compliance (when people are forced to comply contrary to their attitude), and free choice (when weighing up decisions).

Tajfel (1971) –  Social Identity Theory

When divided into artificial (minimal) groups, prejudice results simply from the awareness that there is an “out-group” (the other group).

When the boys were asked to allocate points to others (which might be converted into rewards) who were either part of their own group or the out-group, they displayed a strong in-group preference. That is, they allocated more points on the set task to boys who they believed to be in the same group as themselves.

This can be accounted for by Tajfel & Turner’s social identity theory, which states that individuals need to maintain a positive sense of personal and social identity: this is partly achieved by emphasizing the desirability of one’s own group, focusing on distinctions between other “lesser” groups.

Weiner (1986) – Attribution Theory

Weiner was interested in the attributions made for experiences of success and failure and introduced the idea that we look for explanations of behavior in the social world.

He believed that these were made based on three areas: locus, which could be internal or external; stability, which is whether the cause is stable or changes over time: and controllability.

Milgram (1963) – Shock Experiment

Participants were told that they were taking part in a study on learning but always acted as the teacher when they were then responsible for going over paired associate learning tasks.

When the learner (a stooge) got the answer wrong, they were told by a scientist that they had to deliver an electric shock. This did not actually happen, although the participant was unaware of this as they had themselves a sample (real!) shock at the start of the experiment.

They were encouraged to increase the voltage given after each incorrect answer up to a maximum voltage, and it was found that all participants gave shocks up to 300v, with 65 percent reaching the highest level of 450v.

It seems that obedience is most likely to occur in an unfamiliar environment and in the presence of an authority figure, especially when covert pressure is put upon people to obey. It is also possible that it occurs because the participant felt that someone other than themselves was responsible for their actions.

Haney, Banks, Zimbardo (1973) – Stanford Prison Experiment

Volunteers took part in a simulation where they were randomly assigned the role of a prisoner or guard and taken to a converted university basement resembling a prison environment. There was some basic loss of rights for the prisoners, who were unexpectedly arrested, and given a uniform and an identification number (they were therefore deindividuated).

The study showed that conformity to social roles occurred as part of the social interaction, as both groups displayed more negative emotions, and hostility and dehumanization became apparent.

Prisoners became passive, whilst the guards assumed an active, brutal, and dominant role. Although normative and informational social influence played a role here, deindividuation/the loss of a sense of identity seemed most likely to lead to conformity.

Both this and Milgram’s study introduced the notion of social influence and the ways in which this could be observed/tested.

Provides Clear Predictions

As a scientific discipline, social psychology prioritizes formulating clear and testable hypotheses. This clarity facilitates empirical testing, ensuring the field’s findings are based on observable and quantifiable phenomena.

The Asch conformity experiments hypothesized that individuals would conform to a group’s incorrect judgment.

The clear prediction allowed for controlled experimentation to determine the extent and conditions of such conformity.

Emphasizes Objective Measurement

Social psychology leans heavily on empirical methods, emphasizing objectivity. This means that results are less influenced by biases or subjective interpretations.

Double-blind procedures , controlled settings, and standardized measures in many social psychology experiments ensure that results are replicable and less prone to experimenter bias.

Empirical Evidence

Over the years, a multitude of experiments in social psychology have bolstered the credibility of its theories. This experimental validation lends weight to its findings and claims.

The robust body of experimental evidence supporting cognitive dissonance theory, from Festinger’s initial studies to more recent replications, showcases the theory’s enduring strength and relevance.

Limitations

Underestimates individual differences.

While social psychology often looks at broad trends and general behaviors, it can sometimes gloss over individual differences.

Not everyone conforms, obeys, or reacts in the same way, and these nuanced differences can be critical.

While Milgram’s obedience experiments showcased a startling rate of compliance to authority, there were still participants who resisted, and their reasons and characteristics are equally important to understand.

Ignores Biology

While social psychology focuses on the social environment’s impact on behavior, early theories sometimes neglect the biological underpinnings that play a role.

Hormones, genetics, and neurological factors can influence behavior and might intersect with social factors in complex ways.

The role of testosterone in aggressive behavior is a clear instance where biology intersects with the social. Ignoring such biological components can lead to an incomplete understanding.

Superficial Snapshots of Social Processes

Social psychology sometimes offers a narrow view, capturing only a momentary slice of a broader, evolving process. This might mean that the field fails to capture the depth, evolution, or intricacies of social processes over time.

A study might capture attitudes towards a social issue at a single point in time, but not account for the historical evolution, future shifts, or deeper societal underpinnings of those attitudes.

Allport, F. H. (1920). The influence of the group upon association and thought. Journal of Experimental Psychology , 3(3), 159.

Allport, F. H. (1924). Response to social stimulation in the group. Social psychology , 260-291.

Allport, F. H. (1942). Methods in the study of collective action phenomena. The Journal of Social Psychology , 15(1), 165-185.

Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. (1963). Vicarious reinforcement and imitative learning. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology , 67(6), 601.

Baron, R. A., Byrne, D., & Suls, J. (1989). Attitudes: Evaluating the social world. Baron et al, Social Psychology . 3rd edn. MA: Allyn and Bacon, 79-101.

Festinger, L., Schachter, S., & Back, K. (1950). Social processes in informal groups .

Haney, C., Banks, W. C., & Zimbardo, P. G. (1973). Study of prisoners and guards in a simulated prison. Naval Research Reviews , 9(1-17).

Klineberg, O. (1940). The problem of personality .

Krewer, B., & Jahoda, G. (1860). On the scope of Lazarus and Steinthals “Völkerpsychologie” as reflected in the. Zeitschrift für Völkerpsychologie und Sprachwissenschaft, 1890, 4-12.

Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., & White, R. K. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created “social climates”. The Journal of Social Psychology , 10(2), 269-299.

Mcdougall, W. (1908). An introduction to social psychology . Londres: Methuen.

Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology , 67(4), 371.

Murchison, C. (1935). A handbook of social psychology .

Murphy, G., & Murphy, L. B. (1931). Experimental social psychology .

Sherif, M. (1935). A study of some social factors in perception. Archives of Psychology (Columbia University).

Tajfel, H., Billig, M. G., Bundy, R. P., & Flament, C. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behavior. European journal of social psychology , 1(2), 149-178.

Triplett, N. (1898). The dynamogenic factors in pacemaking and competition. American journal of Psychology , 9(4), 507-533.

Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion . New York: Springer-Verlag.

Get the Reddit app

A community for academic sociology and sociological discussions.

New sociology student here - interested in uncommon social norms for a breaching experiment

Hey all- first time Reddit user here. I recently began taking sociology courses and one of the first sections we deal with is obviously as stated, a social norms breaching experiment. I found students consistently use the same norms in their experiments i.e. saying “hello” in place of “goodbye”, speaking with strangers in the elevator, wearing pajamas in public etc. If anyone has any interesting ideas on social norms or examples of breaching social norm experiments would be greatly appreciated. Not looking to “steal” the idea or use someone else’s work, genuinely just intrigued by other peoples perspectives in terms of social norms and what comes with it when disrupted/different. Thanks so much- hope this post doesn’t flop, please remember first time Reddit user and early Soc student!

By continuing, you agree to our User Agreement and acknowledge that you understand the Privacy Policy .

Enter the 6-digit code from your authenticator app

You’ve set up two-factor authentication for this account.

Enter a 6-digit backup code

Create your username and password.

Reddit is anonymous, so your username is what you’ll go by here. Choose wisely—because once you get a name, you can’t change it.

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

Choose a Reddit account to continue

Experiments in Sociology – Revision Notes

Table of Contents

Last Updated on September 6, 2021 by

Definitions, key features and the theoretical, practical and ethical strengths and limitations of laboratory and field experiments applied to sociology (and psychology). Also covers key terms related to experiments.

post has been written to help students revising for the research methods aspect of their second year A-level exams.

Experiments – The Basics: Definitions/ Key Features

Advantages of laboratory experiments, disadvantages of laboratory experiments, advantages of field experiments over laboratory experiments, the relative disadvantages of field experiments, experiments – key terms summary.

Hypothesis – a theory or explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation. A hypothesis will typically take the form of a testable statement about the effect which one or more independent variables will have on the dependent variable.

Dependent Variable – this is the object of the study in the experiment, the variable which will (possibly) be effected by the independent variables.

Independent variables – The variables which are varied in an experiment – the factors which the experimenter changes in order to measure the effect they have on the dependent variable.

Extraneous variables – Variables which are not of interest to the researcher but which may interfere with the results of an experiment

Experimental group – The group under study in the investigation.

You should also know about natural experiments/ the comparative method –involves comparing two or more societies or groups which are similar in some respects but varied in others, and looking for correlations.  

Signposting

This post has been written to help students revising for the research methods aspect of their second year A-level exams.

Laboratory experiments in sociology

Share this:

One thought on “experiments in sociology – revision notes”, leave a reply cancel reply.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Discover more from ReviseSociology

• Skip to primary navigation
• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Skip to footer

Social Mettle

A List of Quirky Ideas for Social Norm Breaching Experiments

Suppose there is a game in which you are not allowed to say 'yes' or 'no', and have to answer only with another question. Using up the entire range of 'wh-questions', you can think of how entertaining this game can get. Social norm breaching is nothing different than this.

Suppose there is a game in which you are not allowed to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’, and have to answer only with another question. Using up the entire range of ‘wh-questions’, you can think of how entertaining this game can get. Social norm breaching is nothing different than this.

No Suggestions Implied! While a Superman costume flaunting an underwear is taken well, someone wearing undergarments over normal clothes (that too at a fancy dress party) becomes an act of breach! Unfair, isn’t it!

Eating with your hands while dining at a fancy restaurant, wearing your bathrobe to college one day, sending a reply via email when someone had called you on your cell phone, or talking to a stranger by getting very close to him/her, and such similar deeds are ones that a normal human being would usually avoid doing.

If you have tried any of these, you can be called a researcher who was engaged in studying social norm breaching experiments. Such kind acts of nonsense, which you may call bizarre, are not solely meant for entertainment purposes. This testing of socially accepted rules are mainly a part of the fields of sociology and social psychology. Yes, academics can get very interesting at times!

What are Breaching Experiments in Sociology?

Breaching experiments try to study the reactions of people when a social norm is broken or violated.

There are some unwritten rules that all of us follow in our day-to-day conduct. How one would (rather should) behave in a given situation is predefined and based on a lot of assumptions. These experiments try to break these ‘taken for granted’ social norms. Reactions of others to such tricks are also fun to look at. This concept is associated with the ethnomethodology theory of sociology , put forth by Harold Garfinkel.

An unexpected behavior or comment leaves the respondent completely puzzled, making the experiment successful. The approach behind such experiments highlights that, people continue to make a number of such rules everyday, and do not even realize it.

Experiment Ideas

Clearly, a breaching experiment is like asking for trouble. When the action is troublesome, it makes it visible that practices leading to social stability are so much ingrained into our minds. Breaching of norms has to be a deliberate act though; it is not an issue of conflicting opinions leading to disobedience of a given norm. You can try troubling others with the following ideas.

– To a casual question like ‘what’s up?’, you can say ‘the sky’. ‘How’s it going?’ can be replied to in an exhilarating manner, like ‘I didn’t see any ‘it’ going’. When people are not really interested in knowing about you, and they still ask those questions, you may actually stop them and really explain to them some random event going on in your life. (Be very sure about who you want to experiment with this though!)

– Some tests that college students were asked to take, involved behaving like a stranger or renter in one’s home. Talking only when asked about something, or being very polite, are some things their parents reacted to quite strongly.

– In the tic-tac-toe game, ask a person to play first. When he/she places an ‘X’ in a square, you place an ‘O’ on a line forming the matrix, and not in any square space. That person might get confused, or would exclaim, “Have you gone crazy?” Behaving according to the established practices of following given rules is so important here, even if it is a game. This exemplifies an established social order.

– At a decently crowded public place, get one of your friends to stand opposite you. You act like both of you are talking about something important. Then, act as if the both of you are holding a very thin and delicate cotton string in your fingertips, each one of you holding one end of it. Now, start to move away, very slowly, so that people feel that you are holding something very precious. Shout out words like, ‘easy’, ‘be careful’, or ‘watch out’. You may find a few people actually believing you and ducking while they pass through. Someone might even go around you, so as to not break that string. You would notice, it is very easy to create social norms.

Experiment Examples

Here are some examples of interpersonal conversations, mentioned in ethnomethodology literature as case studies of experimentation given by Garfinkel. These have been sourced from books like ‘Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology’ by John Heritage, and ‘Sociology in Perspective’ by Mark Kirby.

– The subject was telling the experimenter―a member of the subject’s car pool―about having had a flat tire while going to work the previous day.

S : I had a flat tire. E : What do you mean, you had a flat tire? She appeared momentarily stunned. Then she answered in a hostile way: ‘What do you mean? What do you mean? A flat tire is a flat tire. That is what I a meant. Nothing special. What a crazy question!’

– By asking ‘What do you mean?’, as a response to every statement, students were asked to continue the conversation.

S : Hi, Ray. How is your girlfriend feeling? E : What do you mean ‘How is she feeling?’. Do you mean physically or mentally? S : I mean how is she feeling? What’s the matter with you? (He looked peeved.) E : Nothing. Just explain a little clearer as to what you mean. S : Skip it. How are your Med School applications coming? E : What do you mean ‘How are they going?’ S : You know what I mean. E : I really don’t. S : What’s the matter with you? Are you sick?

– On Friday night, my husband and I were watching television. He remarked that he was tired. I asked, ‘How are you tired? Physically, mentally, or just bored?’

S : I don’t know, I guess physically, mainly. E : You mean that your muscles ache, or your bones? S : I guess so. Don’t be so technical. (After more watching) S : All these old movies have the same kind of old iron bedstead in them. E : What do you mean? Do you mean all old movies, or some of them, or just the ones you have seen? S : What’s the matter with you? You know what I mean. E : I wish you would be more specific. S : You know what I mean! Drop dead!

– The victim waived his hand cheerily.

S : How are you? E : How am I in regard to what? My health, my finance, my school work, my peace of mind, my … S : (Red in the face and suddenly out of control.) Look! I was just trying to be polite! Frankly, I don’t give a damn how you are.

The results from these cases proved that the experimenters could successfully break the norms. It was possible because of the fact that, any given conversation (or communication) takes place smoothly, ‘assuming the background knowledge’, which helps two people make sense of what the other means.

Well, if you’ve got the point now, you can be real ‘innovative and original’ with this act of breaching. Oh, but just be sure that you don’t mess with the wrong people at the wrong time.

Like it? Share it!

Get Updates Right to Your Inbox

Further insights.

Privacy Overview