social psychology experiments presentation

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.

“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.

9 of the Most Influential Social Psychology Experiments in History

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

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

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

The Stanford Prison Experiment, 1971

1.1. overview.

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

1.2. Results

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

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

1.3. Criticisms

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

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

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

The Asch Conformity Experiment, 1951

2.1. overview.

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

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

2.2. Results

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

2.3. Criticisms

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

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

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

The Bobo Doll Experiment, 1961

3.1. overview.

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

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

3.2. Results

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

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

3.3. Criticisms

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

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

The Milgram Experiment, 1963

4.1. overview.

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

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

4.2. Results

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

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

4.3. Criticisms

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

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

The Halo Effect Experiment, 1977

5.1. overview.

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

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

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

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

5.2. Results

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

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

5.3. Criticisms

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

The False Consensus Effect Experiment, 1974

6.1. overview.

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

6.2. Results

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

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

6.3. Criticisms

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

The Chameleon Effect Experiment, 1990

7.1. overview.

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

7.2. Results

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

7.3. Criticisms

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

The Diffusion of Responsibility Experiment, 1968

8.1. overview.

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

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

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

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

8.2. Results

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

8.3. Criticisms

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

The Cognitive Dissonance Experiment, 1957

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Frequently Asked Questions

What were the initial experiments in social psychology.

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

Why are experiments are used in social psychology?

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

What are social psychology topics?

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

What is an example of a social experiment?

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

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

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

What was the social experiment of the 60s?

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

Ch 9: Social Psychology

Two photographs show people holding signs at public events in response to Trayvon Martin’s death. The signs include words and messages such as, “Justice,” “Wearing a hoodie is not a crime,” “Hoodies don’t kill people; guns kill people,” and, “Do I look suspicious?”

Humans are diverse, and sometimes our differences make it challenging for us to get along with one another. A poignant example is that of Trayvon Martin , a 17-year-old African American who was shot by a neighborhood watch volunteer, George Zimmerman , in a predominantly White neighborhood in 2012. Zimmerman grew suspicious of the boy dressed in a hoodie and pursued Martin. A physical altercation ended with Zimmerman fatally shooting Martin. Zimmerman claimed that he acted in self-defense; Martin was unarmed. A Florida jury found Zimmerman not guilty of second degree murder nor of manslaughter.

Several groups protested what they deemed racial profiling and brutality against an unarmed Black male. Zimmerman, who has a Peruvian mother and a German father, was accused of being racist. Some media coverage was criticized for inflaming racial politics in their coverage. In spite of conflicts such as these, people also to work together to create positive change. For example, after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, people rallied together and charitable donations skyrocket (Brown & Minty, 2006). This chapter explores how the presence of other people influences the behavior of individuals, dyads, and groups. Social factors can determine whether human behavior tends toward conflict or harmony.

Social Psychology and Self-Presentation

Learning Objectives

Describe situational versus dispositional influences on behavior
Give examples of the fundamental attribution error and other biases, including the actor-observer bias and the self-serving bias
Explain the just-world phenomenon
Describe social roles, social norms, and scripts and how they influence behavior
Explain the process and the findings of Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment

Social Psychology and Influences on Behavior

Social psychology examines how people affect one another, and it looks at the power of the situation. Social psychologists assert that an individual’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are very much influenced by social situations. Essentially, people will change their behavior to align with the social situation at hand. If we are in a new situation or are unsure how to behave, we will take our cues from other individuals.

The field of social psychology studies topics at both the intra- and interpersonal levels. Intrapersonal topics (those that pertain to the individual) include emotions and attitudes, the self, and social cognition (the ways in which we think about ourselves and others). Interpersonal topics (those that pertain to dyads and groups) include helping behavior (Figure 2), aggression, prejudice and discrimination, attraction and close relationships, and group processes and intergroup relationships.

A photograph shows several people pushing a car up an incline.

Social psychologists focus on how people construe or interpret situations and how these interpretations influence their thoughts, feelings, and behaviors (Ross & Nisbett, 1991). Thus, social psychology studies individuals in a social context and how situational variables interact to influence behavior. In this module, we discuss the intrapersonal processes of self-presentation, cognitive dissonance and attitude change, and the interpersonal processes of conformity and obedience, aggression and altruism, and, finally, love and attraction.

Situational and Dispositional Influences on Behavior

Behavior is a product of both the situation (e.g., cultural influences, social roles, and the presence of bystanders) and of the person (e.g., personality characteristics). Subfields of psychology tend to focus on one influence or behavior over others. Situationism is the view that our behavior and actions are determined by our immediate environment and surroundings. In contrast, dispositionism holds that our behavior is determined by internal factors (Heider, 1958). An internal factor is an attribute of a person and includes personality traits and temperament. Social psychologists have tended to take the situationist perspective, whereas personality psychologists have promoted the dispositionist perspective. Modern approaches to social psychology, however, take both the situation and the individual into account when studying human behavior (Fiske, Gilbert, & Lindzey, 2010). In fact, the field of social-personality psychology has emerged to study the complex interaction of internal and situational factors that affect human behavior (Mischel, 1977; Richard, Bond, & Stokes-Zoota, 2003).

Fundamental Attribution Error

In the United States, the predominant culture tends to favor a dispositional approach in explaining human behavior. Why do you think this is? We tend to think that people are in control of their own behaviors, and, therefore, any behavior change must be due to something internal, such as their personality, habits, or temperament. According to some social psychologists, people tend to overemphasize internal factors as explanations—or attributions—for the behavior of other people. They tend to assume that the behavior of another person is a trait of that person, and to underestimate the power of the situation on the behavior of others. They tend to fail to recognize when the behavior of another is due to situational variables, and thus to the person’s state . This erroneous assumption is called the fundamental attribution error (Ross, 1977; Riggio & Garcia, 2009). To better understand, imagine this scenario: Greg returns home from work, and upon opening the front door his wife happily greets him and inquires about his day. Instead of greeting his wife, Greg yells at her, “Leave me alone!” Why did Greg yell at his wife? How would someone committing the fundamental attribution error explain Greg’s behavior? The most common response is that Greg is a mean, angry, or unfriendly person (his traits). This is an internal or dispositional explanation. However, imagine that Greg was just laid off from his job due to company downsizing. Would your explanation for Greg’s behavior change? Your revised explanation might be that Greg was frustrated and disappointed for losing his job; therefore, he was in a bad mood (his state). This is now an external or situational explanation for Greg’s behavior.

The fundamental attribution error is so powerful that people often overlook obvious situational influences on behavior. A classic example was demonstrated in a series of experiments known as the quizmaster study (Ross, Amabile, & Steinmetz, 1977). Student participants were randomly assigned to play the role of a questioner (the quizmaster) or a contestant in a quiz game. Questioners developed difficult questions to which they knew the answers, and they presented these questions to the contestants. The contestants answered the questions correctly only 4 out of 10 times (Figure 3). After the task, the questioners and contestants were asked to rate their own general knowledge compared to the average student. Questioners did not rate their general knowledge higher than the contestants, but the contestants rated the questioners’ intelligence higher than their own. In a second study, observers of the interaction also rated the questioner as having more general knowledge than the contestant. The obvious influence on performance is the situation. The questioners wrote the questions, so of course they had an advantage. Both the contestants and observers made an internal attribution for the performance. They concluded that the questioners must be more intelligent than the contestants.

A photograph shows the game show Jeopardy.

As demonstrated in the example above, the fundamental attribution error is considered a powerful influence in how we explain the behaviors of others. However, it should be noted that some researchers have suggested that the fundamental attribution error may not be as powerful as it is often portrayed. In fact, a recent review of more than 173 published studies suggests that several factors (e.g., high levels of idiosyncrasy of the character and how well hypothetical events are explained) play a role in determining just how influential the fundamental attribution error is (Malle, 2006).

Is the Fundamental Attribution Error a Universal Phenomenon?

You may be able to think of examples of the fundamental attribution error in your life. Do people in all cultures commit the fundamental attribution error? Research suggests that they do not. People from an individualistic culture that is, a culture that focuses on individual achievement and autonomy, have the greatest tendency to commit the fundamental attribution error. Individualistic cultures, which tend to be found in western countries such as the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom, promote a focus on the individual. Therefore, a person’s disposition is thought to be the primary explanation for her behavior. In contrast, people from a collectivist culture , that is, a culture that focuses on communal relationships with others, such as family, friends, and community (Figure 4), are less likely to commit the fundamental attribution error (Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Triandis, 2001).

Three photographs show three groups of people: a family preparing a meal, a group of men sitting on a porch, and a group of women playing mahjong.

Why do you think this is the case? Collectivistic cultures, which tend to be found in east Asian countries and in Latin American and African countries, focus on the group more than on the individual (Nisbett, Peng, Choi, & Norenzayan, 2001). This focus on others provides a broader perspective that takes into account both situational and cultural influences on behavior; thus, a more nuanced explanation of the causes of others’ behavior becomes more likely. Table 1 summarizes compares individualistic and collectivist cultures.

Table 1. Characteristics of Individualistic and Collectivistic Cultures
Individualistic Culture	Collectivistic Culture
Achievement oriented	Relationship oriented
Focus on autonomy	Focus on group autonomy
Dispositional perspective	Situational perspective
Independent	Interdependent
Analytic thinking style	Holistic thinking style

Actor-Observer Bias

Returning to our earlier example, Greg knew that he lost his job, but an observer would not know. So a naïve observer would tend to attribute Greg’s hostile behavior to Greg’s disposition rather than to the true, situational cause. Why do you think we underestimate the influence of the situation on the behaviors of others? One reason is that we often don’t have all the information we need to make a situational explanation for another person’s behavior. The only information we might have is what is observable. Due to this lack of information we have a tendency to assume the behavior is due to a dispositional, or internal, factor. When it comes to explaining our own behaviors, however, we have much more information available to us. If you came home from school or work angry and yelled at your dog or a loved one, what would your explanation be? You might say you were very tired or feeling unwell and needed quiet time—a situational explanation. The actor-observer bias is the phenomenon of attributing other people’s behavior to internal factors (fundamental attribution error) while attributing our own behavior to situational forces (Jones & Nisbett, 1971; Nisbett, Caputo, Legant, & Marecek, 1973; Choi & Nisbett, 1998). As actors of behavior, we have more information available to explain our own behavior. However as observers, we have less information available; therefore, we tend to default to a dispositionist perspective.

One study on the actor-observer bias investigated reasons male participants gave for why they liked their girlfriend (Nisbett et al., 1973). When asked why participants liked their own girlfriend, participants focused on internal, dispositional qualities of their girlfriends (for example, her pleasant personality). The participants’ explanations rarely included causes internal to themselves, such as dispositional traits (for example, “I need companionship.”). In contrast, when speculating why a male friend likes his girlfriend, participants were equally likely to give dispositional and external explanations. This supports the idea that actors tend to provide few internal explanations but many situational explanations for their own behavior. In contrast, observers tend to provide more dispositional explanations for a friend’s behavior (Figure 5).

A bar graph compares “own reasons for liking girlfriend” to “friend’s reasons for liking girlfriend.” In the former, situational traits are about twice as high as dispositional traits, while in the latter, situational and dispositional traits are nearly equal.

Self-Serving Bias

Following an outcome, self-serving bias are those attributions that enable us to see ourselves in favorable light (for example, making internal attributions for success and external attributions for failures). When you do well at a task, for example acing an exam, it is in your best interest to make a dispositional attribution for your behavior (“I’m smart,”) instead of a situational one (“The exam was easy,”). The tendency of an individual to take credit by making dispositional or internal attributions for positive outcomes but situational or external attributions for negative outcomes is known as the self-serving bias (or self-serving attribution) (Miller & Ross, 1975). This bias serves to protect self-esteem. You can imagine that if people always made situational attributions for their behavior, they would never be able to take credit and feel good about their accomplishments.

We can understand self-serving bias by digging more deeply into attribution , a belief about the cause of a result. One model of attribution proposes three main dimensions: locus of control (internal versus external), stability (stable versus unstable), and controllability (controllable versus uncontrollable). In this context, stability refers the extent to which the circumstances that result in a given outcome are changeable. The circumstances are considered stable if they are unlikely to change. Controllability refers to the extent to which the circumstances that are associated with a given outcome can be controlled. Obviously, those things that we have the power to control would be labeled controllable (Weiner, 1979).

Consider the example of how we explain our favorite sports team’s wins. Research shows that we make internal, stable, and controllable attributions for our team’s victory (Figure 6) (Grove, Hanrahan, & McInman, 1991). For example, we might tell ourselves that our team is talented (internal), consistently works hard (stable), and uses effective strategies (controllable). In contrast, we are more likely to make external, unstable, and uncontrollable attributions when our favorite team loses. For example, we might tell ourselves that the other team has more experienced players or that the referees were unfair (external), the other team played at home (unstable), and the cold weather affected our team’s performance (uncontrollable).

Just-World Hypothesis

One consequence of westerners’ tendency to provide dispositional explanations for behavior is victim blame (Jost & Major, 2001). When people experience bad fortune, others tend to assume that they somehow are responsible for their own fate. A common ideology, or worldview, in the United States is the just-world hypothesis. The just-world hypothesis is the belief that people get the outcomes they deserve (Lerner & Miller, 1978). In order to maintain the belief that the world is a fair place, people tend to think that good people experience positive outcomes, and bad people experience negative outcomes (Jost, Banaji, & Nosek, 2004; Jost & Major, 2001). The ability to think of the world as a fair place, where people get what they deserve, allows us to feel that the world is predictable and that we have some control over our life outcomes (Jost et al., 2004; Jost & Major, 2001). For example, if you want to experience positive outcomes, you just need to work hard to get ahead in life.

A photograph shows a homeless person and a dog sitting on a sidewalk with a sign reading, “homeless, broke, and hungry.”

Can you think of a negative consequence of the just-world hypothesis? One negative consequence is people’s tendency to blame poor individuals for their plight. What common explanations are given for why people live in poverty? Have you heard statements such as, “The poor are lazy and just don’t want to work” or “Poor people just want to live off the government”? What types of explanations are these, dispositional or situational? These dispositional explanations are clear examples of the fundamental attribution error. Blaming poor people for their poverty ignores situational factors that impact them, such as high unemployment rates, recession, poor educational opportunities, and the familial cycle of poverty (Figure 7). Other research shows that people who hold just-world beliefs have negative attitudes toward people who are unemployed and people living with AIDS (Sutton & Douglas, 2005). In the United States and other countries, victims of sexual assault may find themselves blamed for their abuse. Victim advocacy groups, such as Domestic Violence Ended (DOVE), attend court in support of victims to ensure that blame is directed at the perpetrators of sexual violence, not the victims.

Watch this TED video to apply some of the concepts you learned about attribution and bias.

You can view the transcript for “Should you trust your first impression? – Peter Mende-Siedlecki” here (opens in new window) .

Think It Over

Provide a personal example of an experience in which your behavior was influenced by the power of the situation.
Think of an example in the media of a sports figure—player or coach—who gives a self-serving attribution for winning or losing. Examples might include accusing the referee of incorrect calls, in the case of losing, or citing their own hard work and talent, in the case of winning.

Social Norms and Scripts

Social roles.

One major social determinant of human behavior is our social roles. A social role is a pattern of behavior that is expected of a person in a given setting or group (Hare, 2003). Each one of us has several social roles. You may be, at the same time, a student, a parent, an aspiring teacher, a son or daughter, a spouse, and a lifeguard. How do these social roles influence your behavior? Social roles are defined by culturally shared knowledge. That is, nearly everyone in a given culture knows what behavior is expected of a person in a given role. For example, what is the social role for a student? If you look around a college classroom you will likely see students engaging in studious behavior, taking notes, listening to the professor, reading the textbook, and sitting quietly at their desks (Figure 8). Of course you may see students deviating from the expected studious behavior such as texting on their phones or using Facebook on their laptops, but in all cases, the students that you observe are attending class—a part of the social role of students.

A photograph shows students in a classroom.

Social roles, and our related behavior, can vary across different settings. How do you behave when you are engaging in the role of son or daughter and attending a family function? Now imagine how you behave when you are engaged in the role of employee at your workplace. It is very likely that your behavior will be different. Perhaps you are more relaxed and outgoing with your family, making jokes and doing silly things. But at your workplace you might speak more professionally, and although you may be friendly, you are also serious and focused on getting the work completed. These are examples of how our social roles influence and often dictate our behavior to the extent that identity and personality can vary with context (that is, in different social groups) (Malloy, Albright, Kenny, Agatstein & Winquist, 1997).

Social Norms

As discussed previously, social roles are defined by a culture’s shared knowledge of what is expected behavior of an individual in a specific role. This shared knowledge comes from social norms. A social norm is a group’s expectation of what is appropriate and acceptable behavior for its members—how they are supposed to behave and think (Deutsch & Gerard, 1955; Berkowitz, 2004). How are we expected to act? What are we expected to talk about? What are we expected to wear? In our discussion of social roles we noted that colleges have social norms for students’ behavior in the role of student and workplaces have social norms for employees’ behaviors in the role of employee. Social norms are everywhere including in families, gangs, and on social media outlets. What are some social norms on Facebook?

Everyday Connections: Tweens, Teens, and Social Norms

A photograph shows a group of young people dressed similarly.

My 11-year-old daughter, Jessica, recently told me she needed shorts and shirts for the summer, and that she wanted me to take her to a store at the mall that is popular with preteens and teens to buy them. I have noticed that many girls have clothes from that store, so I tried teasing her. I said, “All the shirts say ‘Aero’ on the front. If you are wearing a shirt like that and you have a substitute teacher, and the other girls are all wearing that type of shirt, won’t the substitute teacher think you are all named ‘Aero’?”

My daughter replied, in typical 11-year-old fashion, “Mom, you are not funny. Can we please go shopping?”

I tried a different tactic. I asked Jessica if having clothing from that particular store will make her popular. She replied, “No, it will not make me popular. It is what the popular kids wear. It will make me feel happier.” How can a label or name brand make someone feel happier? Think back to what you’ve learned about lifespan development. What is it about pre-teens and young teens that make them want to fit in (Figure 9)? Does this change over time? Think back to your high school experience, or look around your college campus. What is the main name brand clothing you see? What messages do we get from the media about how to fit in?

Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment

One famous experiment known for studying the ways that people adopt social roles and scripts was the Stanford prison experiment , conducted by social psychologist Philip Zimbardo and his colleagues at Stanford University. In the summer of 1971, an advertisement was placed in a California newspaper asking for male volunteers to participate in a study about the psychological effects of prison life. The pool of volunteers was whittled down to 24 healthy male college students. Each student was paid $15 per day and was randomly assigned to play the role of either a prisoner or a guard in the study.

A photograph shows a person standing on a box with arms held out. The person is covered in shawl-like attire and a full hood that covers the face completely.

In a relatively short time, the guards came to harass the prisoners in an increasingly sadistic manner, through a complete lack of privacy, lack of basic comforts such as mattresses to sleep on, and through degrading chores and late-night counts. The prisoners, in turn, began to show signs of severe anxiety and hopelessness—they began tolerating the guards’ abuse. After only six days, the experiment had to be ended due to the participants’ deteriorating behavior.

One possible conclusion of this experiment is that the guards and prisoners enacted their social roles by engaging in behaviors appropriate to the roles: the guards gave orders and the prisoners followed orders. Social norms require guards to be authoritarian and prisoners to be submissive. When prisoners rebelled, they violated these social norms, which led to upheaval. Perhaps the specific acts engaged by the guards and the prisoners derived from scripts. For example, guards degraded the prisoners by forcing them do push-ups and by removing all privacy. Prisoners rebelled by throwing pillows and trashing their cells.

It should be noted that some of the Stanford Prison Experiment’s findings have been called into question, and Zimbardo has been criticized for using unethical and unscientific practices. For example, were the guards and prisoners really following scripts and norms, or were they over-exaggerating their behaviors in order to “please” the experimenter, or re-enacting behaviors they had heard about or seen? Critics have noted that Zimbardo instructed the guards to exert psychological control over the prisoners, and that some of the participants intentionally behaved in a way that would help the study, so that, as one guard later put it, “the researchers would have something to work with.” [1]

The study has also been criticized for its small sample size and unrepresentative sample population, especially given that flyers recruiting people for the experiment advertised it as dealing with “prison life”. The results of the experiment have never been successfully replicated. These recent criticisms of the study will hopefully lead to further research that can better explain why people adopt scripts and conform to expected social norms. Can you think of another way to design an experiment that would touch on the way that social roles, norms, and scripts affect behavior?

Try attending a religious service very different from your own and see how you feel and behave without knowing the appropriate script. Or, try attending an important, personal event that you have never attended before, such as a bar mitzvah (a coming-of-age ritual in Jewish culture), a quinceañera (in some Latin American cultures a party is given to a girl who is turning 15 years old), a wedding, a funeral, or a sporting event new to you, such as horse racing or bull riding. Observe and record your feelings and behaviors in this unfamiliar setting for which you lack the appropriate script. Do you silently observe the action, or do you ask another person for help interpreting the behaviors of people at the event? Describe in what ways your behavior would change if you were to attend a similar event in the future?
Name and describe at least three social roles you have adopted for yourself. Why did you adopt these roles? What are some roles that are expected of you, but that you try to resist?

Attitudes and Persuasion

Scrabble pieces arranged to spell out "attitude."

Attitudes are our evaluations or feelings toward a person, idea, or object and typically are positive or negative. Our attitudes and beliefs are influenced not only by external forces, but also by internal influences that we control. An internal form of attitude change is cognitive dissonance or the tension we experience when our thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are in conflict. In order to reduce dissonance, individuals can change their behavior, attitudes, or cognitions, or add a new cognition. Consider the example case of a person who has adopted the attitude that they will no longer eat high fat food, but eat a high-fat doughnut anyway. They might attempt to alleviate this cognitive dissonance through one of the four cognitive reduction techniques:

Change behavior or cognition (“I will not eat any more of this doughnut”)
Justify behavior or cognition by changing the conflicting cognition (“I’m allowed to cheat every once in a while”)
Justify behavior or cognition by adding new cognitions (“I’ll spend 30 extra minutes at the gym to work this off”)
Ignore or deny any information that conflicts with existing beliefs (“This doughnut is not high in fat”)

Can you think of times you’ve experience cognitive dissonance, and what you did to reduce the internal conflict?

Other ways that attitudes are affected include external forces of persuasion, such as advertising. The features of advertising that influence our behaviors include the source, message, and audience. There are two primary routes to persuasion: the central route to persuasion uses facts and information to persuade potential consumers; the peripheral route uses positive association with cues such as beauty, fame, and positive emotions.

Define attitude and recognize how people’s attitudes are internally changed through cognitive dissonance
Explain how people’s attitudes are externally changed through persuasion
Compare the peripheral and central routes to persuasion

Social psychologists have documented how the power of the situation can influence our behaviors. Now we turn to how the power of the situation can influence our attitudes and beliefs. Attitude is our evaluation of a person, an idea, or an object. We have attitudes for many things ranging from products that we might pick up in the supermarket to people around the world to political policies. Typically, attitudes are favorable or unfavorable: positive or negative (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). And, they have three components: an affective component (feelings), a behavioral component (the effect of the attitude on behavior), and a cognitive component (belief and knowledge) (Rosenberg & Hovland, 1960).

For example, you may hold a positive attitude toward recycling. This attitude should result in positive feelings toward recycling (such as “It makes me feel good to recycle” or “I enjoy knowing that I make a small difference in reducing the amount of waste that ends up in landfills”). Certainly, this attitude should be reflected in our behavior: You actually recycle as often as you can. Finally, this attitude will be reflected in favorable thoughts (for example, “Recycling is good for the environment” or “Recycling is the responsible thing to do”).

Our attitudes and beliefs are not only influenced by external forces, but also by internal influences that we control. Like our behavior, our attitudes and thoughts are not always changed by situational pressures, but they can be consciously changed by our own free will. In this section we discuss the conditions under which we would want to change our own attitudes and beliefs.

What is Cognitive Dissonance?

Social psychologists have documented that feeling good about ourselves and maintaining positive self-esteem is a powerful motivator of human behavior (Tavris & Aronson, 2008). In the United States, members of the predominant culture typically think very highly of themselves and view themselves as good people who are above average on many desirable traits (Ehrlinger, Gilovich, & Ross, 2005). Often, our behavior, attitudes, and beliefs are affected when we experience a threat to our self-esteem or positive self-image. Psychologist Leon Festinger (1957) defined cognitive dissonance as psychological discomfort arising from holding two or more inconsistent attitudes, behaviors, or cognitions (thoughts, beliefs, or opinions). Festinger’s theory of cognitive dissonance states that when we experience a conflict in our behaviors, attitudes, or beliefs that runs counter to our positive self-perceptions, we experience psychological discomfort (dissonance). For example, if you believe smoking is bad for your health but you continue to smoke, you experience conflict between your belief and behavior.

A diagram shows the process of cognitive dissonance. Two disparate statements (“I am a smoker” and “Smoking is bad for your health”) are joined as an example of cognitive dissonance. A flow diagram joins them in a process labeled, “Remove dissonance tension,” with two resulting flows. The first flow path shows the warning on a pack of cigarettes with a checkmark imposed over the image that is labeled, “Smoking is bad for your health.” The path then shows a photograph of an arm with a nicotine patch that is labeled, “I quit smoking.” The second flow path shows the warning on a pack of cigarettes with an X imposed over the image and is labeled, “Research is inconclusive,” then shows a photograph of a person smoking labeled, “I am still a smoker.”

Later research documented that only conflicting cognitions that threaten individuals’ positive self-image cause dissonance (Greenwald & Ronis, 1978). Additional research found that dissonance is not only psychologically uncomfortable but also can cause physiological arousal (Croyle & Cooper, 1983) and activate regions of the brain important in emotions and cognitive functioning (van Veen, Krug, Schooler, & Carter, 2009). When we experience cognitive dissonance, we are motivated to decrease it because it is psychologically, physically, and mentally uncomfortable. We can reduce cognitive dissonance by bringing our cognitions, attitudes, and behaviors in line—that is, making them harmonious. This can be done in different ways, such as:

changing our discrepant behavior (e.g., stop smoking),
changing our cognitions through rationalization or denial (e.g., telling ourselves that health risks can be reduced by smoking filtered cigarettes),
adding a new cognition (e.g., “Smoking suppresses my appetite so I don’t become overweight, which is good for my health.”).

A classic example of cognitive dissonance is John, a 20-year-old who enlists in the military. During boot camp he is awakened at 5:00 a.m., is chronically sleep deprived, yelled at, covered in sand flea bites, physically bruised and battered, and mentally exhausted (Figure 12). It gets worse. Recruits that make it to week 11 of boot camp have to do 54 hours of continuous training.

A photograph shows a person doing pushups while a military leader stands over the person; other people are doing jumping jacks in the background.

Not surprisingly, John is miserable. No one likes to be miserable. In this type of situation, people can change their beliefs, their attitudes, or their behaviors. The last option, a change of behaviors, is not available to John. He has signed on to the military for four years, and he cannot legally leave.

If John keeps thinking about how miserable he is, it is going to be a very long four years. He will be in a constant state of cognitive dissonance. As an alternative to this misery, John can change his beliefs or attitudes. He can tell himself, “I am becoming stronger, healthier, and sharper. I am learning discipline and how to defend myself and my country. What I am doing is really important.” If this is his belief, he will realize that he is becoming stronger through his challenges. He then will feel better and not experience cognitive dissonance, which is an uncomfortable state.

Effect of Initiation

The military example demonstrates the observation that a difficult initiation into a group influences us to like the group more , due to the justification of effort. We do not want to have wasted time and effort to join a group that we eventually leave. A classic experiment by Aronson and Mills (1959) demonstrated this justification of effort effect. College students volunteered to join a campus group that would meet regularly to discuss the psychology of sex. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: no initiation, an easy initiation, and a difficult initiation into the group. After participating in the first discussion, which was deliberately made very boring, participants rated how much they liked the group. Participants who underwent a difficult initiation process to join the group rated the group more favorably than did participants with an easy initiation or no initiation (Figure 13).

A bar graph has an x-axis labeled, “Difficulty of initiation” and a y-axis labeled, “Relative magnitude of liking a group.” The liking of the group is low to moderate for the groups whose difficulty of initiation was “none” or “easy,” but high for the group whose difficulty of initiation was “difficult.”

Similar effects can be seen in a more recent study of how student effort affects course evaluations. Heckert, Latier, Ringwald-Burton, and Drazen (2006) surveyed 463 undergraduates enrolled in courses at a midwestern university about the amount of effort that their courses required of them. In addition, the students were also asked to evaluate various aspects of the course. Given what you’ve just read, it will come as no surprise that those courses that were associated with the highest level of effort were evaluated as being more valuable than those that did not. Furthermore, students indicated that they learned more in courses that required more effort, regardless of the grades that they received in those courses (Heckert et al., 2006).

Besides the classic military example and group initiation, can you think of other examples of cognitive dissonance? Here is one: Marco and Maria live in Fairfield County, Connecticut, which is one of the wealthiest areas in the United States and has a very high cost of living. Marco telecommutes from home and Maria does not work outside of the home. They rent a very small house for more than $3000 a month. Maria shops at consignment stores for clothes and economizes where she can. They complain that they never have any money and that they cannot buy anything new. When asked why they do not move to a less expensive location, since Marco telecommutes, they respond that Fairfield County is beautiful, they love the beaches, and they feel comfortable there. How does the theory of cognitive dissonance apply to Marco and Maria’s choices?

A photograph shows the back of a car that is covered in numerous bumper stickers.

Yale Attitude Change Approach

The topic of persuasion has been one of the most extensively researched areas in social psychology (Fiske et al., 2010). During the Second World War, Carl Hovland extensively researched persuasion for the U.S. Army. After the war, Hovland continued his exploration of persuasion at Yale University. Out of this work came a model called the Yale attitude change approach , which describes the conditions under which people tend to change their attitudes. Hovland demonstrated that certain features of the source of a persuasive message, the content of the message, and the characteristics of the audience will influence the persuasiveness of a message (Hovland, Janis, & Kelley, 1953).

Features of the source of the persuasive message include the credibility of the speaker (Hovland & Weiss, 1951) and the physical attractiveness of the speaker (Eagly & Chaiken, 1975; Petty, Wegener, & Fabrigar, 1997). Thus, speakers who are credible, or have expertise on the topic, and who are deemed as trustworthy are more persuasive than less credible speakers. Similarly, more attractive speakers are more persuasive than less attractive speakers. The use of famous actors and athletes to advertise products on television and in print relies on this principle. The immediate and long term impact of the persuasion also depends, however, on the credibility of the messenger (Kumkale & Albarracín, 2004).

Features of the message itself that affect persuasion include subtlety (the quality of being important, but not obvious) (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986; Walster & Festinger, 1962); sidedness (that is, having more than one side) (Crowley & Hoyer, 1994; Igou & Bless, 2003; Lumsdaine & Janis, 1953); timing (Haugtvedt & Wegener, 1994; Miller & Campbell, 1959), and whether both sides are presented. Messages that are more subtle are more persuasive than direct messages. Arguments that occur first, such as in a debate, are more influential if messages are given back-to-back. However, if there is a delay after the first message, and before the audience needs to make a decision, the last message presented will tend to be more persuasive (Miller & Campbell, 1959).

Features of the audience that affect persuasion are attention (Albarracín & Wyer, 2001; Festinger & Maccoby, 1964), intelligence, self-esteem (Rhodes & Wood, 1992), and age (Krosnick & Alwin, 1989). In order to be persuaded, audience members must be paying attention. People with lower intelligence are more easily persuaded than people with higher intelligence; whereas people with moderate self-esteem are more easily persuaded than people with higher or lower self-esteem (Rhodes & Wood, 1992). Finally, younger adults aged 18–25 are more persuadable than older adults.

Elaboration Likelihood Model

An especially popular model that describes the dynamics of persuasion is the elaboration likelihood model of persuasion (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). The elaboration likelihood model considers the variables of the attitude change approach—that is, features of the source of the persuasive message, contents of the message, and characteristics of the audience are used to determine when attitude change will occur. According to the elaboration likelihood model of persuasion, there are two main routes that play a role in delivering a persuasive message: central and peripheral (Figure 15).

A diagram shows two routes of persuasion. A box on the left is labeled “persuasive message” and arrows from the box separate into two routes: the central and peripheral routes, each with boxes describing the characteristics of the audience, processing, and persuasion. The audience is “motivated, analytical” in the central route, and “not motivated, not analytical” in the peripheral route. Processing in the central route is “high effort; evaluate message” and in the peripheral route is “low effort; persuaded by cues outside of message.” Persuasion in the central route is “lasting change in attitude” and in the peripheral route is “temporary change in attitude.”

The central route is logic driven and uses data and facts to convince people of an argument’s worthiness. For example, a car company seeking to persuade you to purchase their model will emphasize the car’s safety features and fuel economy. This is a direct route to persuasion that focuses on the quality of the information. In order for the central route of persuasion to be effective in changing attitudes, thoughts, and behaviors, the argument must be strong and, if successful, will result in lasting attitude change.

The central route to persuasion works best when the target of persuasion, or the audience, is analytical and willing to engage in processing of the information. From an advertiser’s perspective, what products would be best sold using the central route to persuasion? What audience would most likely be influenced to buy the product? One example is buying a computer. It is likely, for example, that small business owners might be especially influenced by the focus on the computer’s quality and features such as processing speed and memory capacity.

The peripheral route is an indirect route that uses peripheral cues to associate positivity with the message (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). Instead of focusing on the facts and a product’s quality, the peripheral route relies on association with positive characteristics such as positive emotions and celebrity endorsement. For example, having a popular athlete advertise athletic shoes is a common method used to encourage young adults to purchase the shoes. This route to attitude change does not require much effort or information processing. This method of persuasion may promote positivity toward the message or product, but it typically results in less permanent attitude or behavior change. The audience does not need to be analytical or motivated to process the message. In fact, a peripheral route to persuasion may not even be noticed by the audience, for example in the strategy of product placement. Product placement refers to putting a product with a clear brand name or brand identity in a TV show or movie to promote the product (Gupta & Lord, 1998). For example, one season of the reality series American Idol prominently showed the panel of judges drinking out of cups that displayed the Coca-Cola logo. What other products would be best sold using the peripheral route to persuasion? Another example is clothing: A retailer may focus on celebrities that are wearing the same style of clothing.

Foot-in-the-door Technique

Researchers have tested many persuasion strategies that are effective in selling products and changing people’s attitude, ideas, and behaviors. One effective strategy is the foot-in-the-door technique (Cialdini, 2001; Pliner, Hart, Kohl, & Saari, 1974). Using the foot-in-the-door technique , the persuader gets a person to agree to bestow a small favor or to buy a small item, only to later request a larger favor or purchase of a bigger item. The foot-in-the-door technique was demonstrated in a study by Freedman and Fraser (1966) in which participants who agreed to post small sign in their yard or sign a petition were more likely to agree to put a large sign in their yard than people who declined the first request (Figure 16). Research on this technique also illustrates the principle of consistency (Cialdini, 2001): Our past behavior often directs our future behavior, and we have a desire to maintain consistency once we have a committed to a behavior.

Photograph A shows a campaign button. Photograph B shows a yard filled with numerous signs.

A common application of foot-in-the-door is when teens ask their parents for a small permission (for example, extending curfew by a half hour) and then asking them for something larger. Having granted the smaller request increases the likelihood that parents will acquiesce with the later, larger request.

How would a store owner use the foot-in-the-door technique to sell you an expensive product? For example, say that you are buying the latest model smartphone, and the salesperson suggests you purchase the best data plan. You agree to this. The salesperson then suggests a bigger purchase—the three-year extended warranty. After agreeing to the smaller request, you are more likely to also agree to the larger request. You may have encountered this if you have bought a car. When salespeople realize that a buyer intends to purchase a certain model, they might try to get the customer to pay for many or most available options on the car.

Link to Learning

Group behavior.

Four computer-generated people of different colors holding a piece of a puzzle and fitting the pieces together to make a circle.

Describe the results of research on conformity, and distinguish between normative and informational social influence.
Describe Stanley Milgram’s experiment and its implications
Illustrate when the presence of others is likely to result in groupthink, social facilitation, or social loafing
Explain the factors that influence human altruism, including reciprocal altruism

Solomon Asch conducted several experiments in the 1950s to determine how people are affected by the thoughts and behaviors of other people. In one study, a group of participants was shown a series of printed line segments of different lengths: a, b, and c (Figure 17). Participants were then shown a fourth line segment: x. They were asked to identify which line segment from the first group (a, b, or c) most closely resembled the fourth line segment in length.

A drawing has two boxes: in the first is a line labeled “x” and in the second are three lines of different lengths from each other, labeled “a,” “b,” and “c.”

Each group of participants had only one true, naïve subject. The remaining members of the group were confederates of the researcher. A confederate is a person who is aware of the experiment and works for the researcher. Confederates are used to manipulate social situations as part of the research design, and the true, naïve participants believe that confederates are, like them, uninformed participants in the experiment. In Asch’s study, the confederates identified a line segment that was obviously shorter than the target line—a wrong answer. The naïve participant then had to identify aloud the line segment that best matched the target line segment.

How often do you think the true participant aligned with the confederates’ response? That is, how often do you think the group influenced the participant, and the participant gave the wrong answer? Asch (1955) found that 76% of participants conformed to group pressure at least once by indicating the incorrect line. Conformity is the change in a person’s behavior to go along with the group, even if he does not agree with the group. Why would people give the wrong answer? What factors would increase or decrease someone giving in or conforming to group pressure?

The Asch effect is the influence of the group majority on an individual’s judgment.

What factors make a person more likely to yield to group pressure? Research shows that the size of the majority, the presence of another dissenter, and the public or relatively private nature of responses are key influences on conformity.

The size of the majority: The greater the number of people in the majority, the more likely an individual will conform. There is, however, an upper limit: a point where adding more members does not increase conformity. In Asch’s study, conformity increased with the number of people in the majority—up to seven individuals. At numbers beyond seven, conformity leveled off and decreased slightly (Asch, 1955).
The presence of another dissenter: If there is at least one dissenter, conformity rates drop to near zero (Asch, 1955).
The public or private nature of the responses: When responses are made publicly (in front of others), conformity is more likely; however, when responses are made privately (e.g., writing down the response), conformity is less likely (Deutsch & Gerard, 1955).

The finding that conformity is more likely to occur when responses are public than when they are private is the reason government elections require voting in secret, so we are not coerced by others (Figure 18). The Asch effect can be easily seen in children when they have to publicly vote for something. For example, if the teacher asks whether the children would rather have extra recess, no homework, or candy, once a few children vote, the rest will comply and go with the majority. In a different classroom, the majority might vote differently, and most of the children would comply with that majority. When someone’s vote changes if it is made in public versus private, this is known as compliance. Compliance can be a form of conformity. Compliance is going along with a request or demand, even if you do not agree with the request. In Asch’s studies, the participants complied by giving the wrong answers, but privately did not accept that the obvious wrong answers were correct.

A photograph shows a row of curtained voting booths; two are occupied by people.

Now that you have learned about the Asch line experiments, why do you think the participants conformed? The correct answer to the line segment question was obvious, and it was an easy task. Researchers have categorized the motivation to conform into two types: normative social influence and informational social influence (Deutsch & Gerard, 1955).

In normative social influence , people conform to the group norm to fit in, to feel good, and to be accepted by the group. However, with informational social influence , people conform because they believe the group is competent and has the correct information, particularly when the task or situation is ambiguous. What type of social influence was operating in the Asch conformity studies? Since the line judgment task was unambiguous, participants did not need to rely on the group for information. Instead, participants complied to fit in and avoid ridicule, an instance of normative social influence.

An example of informational social influence may be what to do in an emergency situation. Imagine that you are in a movie theater watching a film and what seems to be smoke comes in the theater from under the emergency exit door. You are not certain that it is smoke—it might be a special effect for the movie, such as a fog machine. When you are uncertain you will tend to look at the behavior of others in the theater. If other people show concern and get up to leave, you are likely to do the same. However, if others seem unconcerned, you are likely to stay put and continue watching the movie (Figure 19).

Photograph A shows people seated in an auditorium. Photograph B shows a person crowd surfing.

How would you have behaved if you were a participant in Asch’s study? Many students say they would not conform, that the study is outdated, and that people nowadays are more independent. To some extent this may be true. Research suggests that overall rates of conformity may have reduced since the time of Asch’s research. Furthermore, efforts to replicate Asch’s study have made it clear that many factors determine how likely it is that someone will demonstrate conformity to the group. These factors include the participant’s age, gender, and socio-cultural background (Bond & Smith, 1996; Larsen, 1990; Walker & Andrade, 1996).

Watch the following to see a clip of the Asch experiment:

You can view the transcript for “The Asch Experiment” here (opens in new window) .

Stanley Milgram’s Experiment

Conformity is one effect of the influence of others on our thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. Another form of social influence is obedience to authority. Obedience is the change of an individual’s behavior to comply with a demand by an authority figure. People often comply with the request because they are concerned about a consequence if they do not comply. To demonstrate this phenomenon, we review another classic social psychology experiment.

Stanley Milgram was a social psychology professor at Yale who was influenced by the trial of Adolf Eichmann, a Nazi war criminal. Eichmann’s defense for the atrocities he committed was that he was “just following orders.” Milgram (1963) wanted to test the validity of this defense, so he designed an experiment and initially recruited 40 men for his experiment. The volunteer participants were led to believe that they were participating in a study to improve learning and memory. The participants were told that they were to teach other students (learners) correct answers to a series of test items. The participants were shown how to use a device that they were told delivered electric shocks of different intensities to the learners. The participants were told to shock the learners if they gave a wrong answer to a test item—that the shock would help them to learn. The participants gave (or believed they gave) the learners shocks, which increased in 15-volt increments, all the way up to 450 volts. The participants did not know that the learners were confederates and that the confederates did not actually receive shocks.

In response to a string of incorrect answers from the learners, the participants obediently and repeatedly shocked them. The confederate learners cried out for help, begged the participant teachers to stop, and even complained of heart trouble. Yet, when the researcher told the participant-teachers to continue the shock, 65% of the participants continued the shock to the maximum voltage and to the point that the learner became unresponsive (Figure 20). What makes someone obey authority to the point of potentially causing serious harm to another person?

A graph shows the voltage of shock given on the x-axis, and the percentage of participants who delivered voltage on the y-axis. All or nearly all participants delivered slight to moderate shock (15–135 volts); with strong to very strong shock (135–255 volts), the participation percentage dropped to about 80%; with intense to extremely intense shock (255–375 volts), the participation percentage dropped to about 65%; the participation percentage remained at about 65% for severe shock (375–435 volts) and XXX (435–450 volts).

Several variations of the original Milgram experiment were conducted to test the boundaries of obedience. When certain features of the situation were changed, participants were less likely to continue to deliver shocks (Milgram, 1965). For example, when the setting of the experiment was moved to an office building, the percentage of participants who delivered the highest shock dropped to 48%. When the learner was in the same room as the teacher, the highest shock rate dropped to 40%. When the teachers’ and learners’ hands were touching, the highest shock rate dropped to 30%. When the researcher gave the orders by phone, the rate dropped to 23%. These variations show that when the humanity of the person being shocked was increased, obedience decreased. Similarly, when the authority of the experimenter decreased, so did obedience.

This case is still very applicable today. What does a person do if an authority figure orders something done? What if the person believes it is incorrect, or worse, unethical? In a study by Martin and Bull (2008), midwives privately filled out a questionnaire regarding best practices and expectations in delivering a baby. Then, a more senior midwife and supervisor asked the junior midwives to do something they had previously stated they were opposed to. Most of the junior midwives were obedient to authority, going against their own beliefs.

Link to learning

Think about it.

Conduct a conformity study the next time you are in an elevator. After you enter the elevator, stand with your back toward the door. See if others conform to your behavior. Did your results turn out as expected?
Most students adamantly state that they would never have turned up the voltage in the Milgram experiment. Do you think you would have refused to shock the learner? Looking at your own past behavior, what evidence suggests that you would go along with the order to increase the voltage?

When in group settings, we are often influenced by the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors around us. Whether it is due to normative or informational social influence, groups have power to influence individuals. Another phenomenon of group conformity is groupthink. Groupthink is the modification of the opinions of members of a group to align with what they believe is the group consensus (Janis, 1972). In group situations, the group often takes action that individuals would not perform outside the group setting because groups make more extreme decisions than individuals do. Moreover, groupthink can hinder opposing trains of thought. This elimination of diverse opinions contributes to faulty decision by the group.

Dig Deeper: Groupthink in the U.S. Government

Why does groupthink occur? There are several causes of groupthink, which makes it preventable. When the group is highly cohesive, or has a strong sense of connection, maintaining group harmony may become more important to the group than making sound decisions. If the group leader is directive and makes his opinions known, this may discourage group members from disagreeing with the leader. If the group is isolated from hearing alternative or new viewpoints, groupthink may be more likely. How do you know when groupthink is occurring?

There are several symptoms of groupthink including the following:

perceiving the group as invulnerable or invincible—believing it can do no wrong
believing the group is morally correct
self-censorship by group members, such as withholding information to avoid disrupting the group consensus
the quashing of dissenting group members’ opinions
the shielding of the group leader from dissenting views
perceiving an illusion of unanimity among group members
holding stereotypes or negative attitudes toward the out-group or others’ with differing viewpoints (Janis, 1972)

Given the causes and symptoms of groupthink, how can it be avoided? There are several strategies that can improve group decision making including seeking outside opinions, voting in private, having the leader withhold position statements until all group members have voiced their views, conducting research on all viewpoints, weighing the costs and benefits of all options, and developing a contingency plan (Janis, 1972; Mitchell & Eckstein, 2009).

Group Polarization

Another phenomenon that occurs within group settings is group polarization. Group polarization (Teger & Pruitt, 1967) is the strengthening of an original group attitude after the discussion of views within a group. That is, if a group initially favors a viewpoint, after discussion the group consensus is likely a stronger endorsement of the viewpoint. Conversely, if the group was initially opposed to a viewpoint, group discussion would likely lead to stronger opposition. Group polarization explains many actions taken by groups that would not be undertaken by individuals. Group polarization can be observed at political conventions, when platforms of the party are supported by individuals who, when not in a group, would decline to support them. A more everyday example is a group’s discussion of how attractive someone is. Does your opinion change if you find someone attractive, but your friends do not agree? If your friends vociferously agree, might you then find this person even more attractive?

Social Facilitation

Not all intergroup interactions lead to the negative outcomes we have described. Sometimes being in a group situation can improve performance. Social facilitation occurs when an individual performs better when an audience is watching than when the individual performs the behavior alone. This typically occurs when people are performing a task for which they are skilled. Can you think of an example in which having an audience could improve performance? One common example is sports. Skilled basketball players will be more likely to make a free throw basket when surrounded by a cheering audience than when playing alone in the gym (Figure 21). However, there are instances when even skilled athletes can have difficulty under pressure. For example, if an athlete is less skilled or nervous about making a free throw, having an audience may actually hinder rather than help. In sum, social facilitation is likely to occur for easy tasks, or tasks at which we are skilled, but worse performance may occur when performing in front of others, depending on the task.

Social Loafing

Another way in which a group presence can affect our performance is social loafing. Social loafing is the exertion of less effort by a person working together with a group. Social loafing occurs when our individual performance cannot be evaluated separately from the group. Thus, group performance declines on easy tasks (Karau & Williams, 1993). Essentially individual group members loaf and let other group members pick up the slack. Because each individual’s efforts cannot be evaluated, individuals become less motivated to perform well. For example, consider a group of people cooperating to clean litter from the roadside. Some people will exert a great amount of effort, while others will exert little effort. Yet the entire job gets done, and it may not be obvious who worked hard and who didn’t.

As a college student you may have experienced social loafing while working on a group project. Have you ever had to contribute more than your fair share because your fellow group members weren’t putting in the work? This may happen when a professor assigns a group grade instead of individual grades. If the professor doesn’t know how much effort each student contributed to a project, some students may be inclined to let more conscientious students do more of the work. The chance of social loafing in student work groups increases as the size of the group increases (Shepperd & Taylor, 1999).

Interestingly, the opposite of social loafing occurs when the task is complex and difficult (Bond & Titus, 1983; Geen, 1989). Remember the previous discussion of choking under pressure? This happens when you perform a difficult task and your individual performance can be evaluated. In a group setting, such as the student work group, if your individual performance cannot be evaluated, there is less pressure for you to do well, and thus less anxiety or physiological arousal (Latané, Williams, & Harkens, 1979). This puts you in a relaxed state in which you can perform your best, if you choose (Zajonc, 1965). If the task is a difficult one, many people feel motivated and believe that their group needs their input to do well on a challenging project (Jackson & Williams, 1985). Given what you learned about social loafing, what advice would you give a new professor about how to design group projects? If you suggested that individuals’ efforts should not be evaluated, to prevent the anxiety of choking under pressure, but that the task must be challenging, you have a good understanding of the concepts discussed in this section. Alternatively, you can suggest that individuals’ efforts should be evaluated, but the task should be easy so as to facilitate performance. Good luck trying to convince your professor to only assign easy projects!

Table 2 summarizes the types of social influence you have learned about in this module.

Table 2. Types of Social Influence
Type of Social Influence	Description
Conformity	Changing your behavior to go along with the group even if you do not agree with the group
Compliance	Going along with a request or demand
Normative social influence	Conformity to a group norm to fit in, feel good, and be accepted by the group
Informational social influence	Conformity to a group norm prompted by the belief that the group is competent and has the correct information
Obedience	Changing your behavior to please an authority figure or to avoid aversive consequences
Groupthink	Group members modify their opinions to match what they believe is the group consensus
Group polarization	Strengthening of the original group attitude after discussing views within a group
Social facilitation	Improved performance when an audience is watching versus when the individual performs the behavior alone
Social loafing	Exertion of less effort by a person working in a group because individual performance cannot be evaluated separately from the group, thus causing performance decline on easy tasks

Consider examples of social influence and groupthink and review the concepts you learned previously about conformity and obedience in the following CrashCourse video:

You can view the transcript for “Social Influence: Crash Course Psychology #38” here (opens in new window) .

The Bystander Effect and Altruism

Go to YouTube and search for episodes of “Primetime: What Would You Do?” You will find video segments in which apparently innocent individuals are victimized, while onlookers typically fail to intervene. The events are all staged, but they are very real to the bystanders on the scene. The entertainment offered is the nature of the bystanders’ responses, and viewers are outraged when bystanders fail to intervene. They are convinced that they would have helped. But would they? Viewers are overly optimistic in their beliefs that they would play the hero. Helping may occur frequently, but help is not always given to those in need. So when do people help, and when do they not? All people are not equally helpful— who helps? Why would a person help another in the first place? Many factors go into a person’s decision to help—a fact that the viewers do not fully appreciate. This module will answer the question: Who helps when and why?

A man walks arm in arm with an elderly man, while another woman approaches as if to offer help as well. Yet another woman walks by smiling at the altruistic behavior.

When Do People Help?

Social psychologists began trying to answer this question following the unfortunate murder of Kitty Genovese in 1964 (Dovidio, Piliavin, Schroeder, & Penner, 2006; Penner, Dovidio, Piliavin, & Schroeder, 2005). A knife-wielding assailant attacked Kitty repeatedly as she was returning to her apartment early one morning. At least 38 people may have been aware of the attack, but no one came to save her. Based on this case, researchers Latané and Darley (1968) described a phenomenon called the bystander effect . The bystander effect is a phenomenon in which a witness or bystander does not volunteer to help a victim or person in distress. Instead, they just watch what is happening. Social psychologists hold that we make these decisions based on the social situation, not our own personality variables. Why do you think the bystanders didn’t help Genovese? What are the benefits to helping her? What are the risks? It is very likely you listed more costs than benefits to helping. In this situation, bystanders likely feared for their own lives—if they went to her aid the attacker might harm them. However, how difficult would it have been to make a phone call to the police from the safety of their apartments? Why do you think no one helped in any way?

More recently, in 2010, Hugo Alfredo Tale-Yax was stabbed when he apparently tried to intervene in an argument between a man and woman. As he lay dying in the street, only one man checked his status, but many others simply glanced at the scene and continued on their way. (One passerby did stop to take a cellphone photo, however.)

Unfortunately, failures to come to the aid of someone in need are not unique, as the segments on “What Would You Do?” show. Help is not always forthcoming for those who may need it the most. Trying to understand why people do not always help became the focus of bystander intervention research (e.g., Latané & Darley, 1970).

To answer the question regarding when people help, researchers have focused on

how bystanders come to define emergencies,
when they decide to take responsibility for helping, and
how the costs and benefits of intervening affect their decisions of whether to help.

Defining the Situation: The Role of Pluralistic Ignorance

The decision to help is not a simple yes/no proposition. In fact, a series of questions must be addressed before help is given—even in emergencies in which time may be of the essence. Sometimes help comes quickly; an onlooker recently jumped from a Philadelphia subway platform to help a stranger who had fallen on the track. Help was clearly needed and was quickly given. But some situations are ambiguous, and potential helpers may have to decide whether a situation is one in which help, in fact, needs to be given.

To define ambiguous situations (including many emergencies), potential helpers may look to the action of others to decide what should be done. But those others are looking around too, also trying to figure out what to do. Everyone is looking, but no one is acting! Relying on others to define the situation and to then erroneously conclude that no intervention is necessary when help is actually needed is called pluralistic ignorance (Latané & Darley, 1970). When people use the inactions of others to define their own course of action, the resulting pluralistic ignorance leads to less help being given.

Do I Have to be the One to Help?: Diffusion of Responsibility

Simply being with others may facilitate or inhibit whether we get involved in other ways as well. In situations in which help is needed, the presence or absence of others may affect whether a bystander will assume personal responsibility to give the assistance. If the bystander is alone, personal responsibility to help falls solely on the shoulders of that person. But what if others are present? Although it might seem that having more potential helpers around would increase the chances of the victim getting help, the opposite is often the case. Knowing that someone else could help seems to relieve bystanders of personal responsibility, so bystanders do not intervene. This phenomenon is known as diffusion of responsibility (Darley & Latané, 1968).

On the other hand, watch the video of the race officials following the 2013 Boston Marathon after two bombs exploded as runners crossed the finish line. Despite the presence of many spectators, the yellow-jacketed race officials immediately rushed to give aid and comfort to the victims of the blast. Each one no doubt felt a personal responsibility to help by virtue of their official capacity in the event; fulfilling the obligations of their roles overrode the influence of the diffusion of responsibility effect.

There is an extensive body of research showing the negative impact of pluralistic ignorance and diffusion of responsibility on helping (Fisher et al., 2011), in both emergencies and everyday need situations. These studies show the tremendous importance potential helpers place on the social situation in which unfortunate events occur, especially when it is not clear what should be done and who should do it. Other people provide important social information about how we should act and what our personal obligations might be. But does knowing a person needs help and accepting responsibility to provide that help mean the person will get assistance? Not necessarily.

The Costs and Rewards of Helping

The nature of the help needed plays a crucial role in determining what happens next. Specifically, potential helpers engage in a cost–benefit analysis before getting involved (Dovidio et al., 2006). If the needed help is of relatively low cost in terms of time, money, resources, or risk, then help is more likely to be given. Lending a classmate a pencil is easy; confronting the knife-wielding assailant who attacked Kitty Genovese is an entirely different matter. As the unfortunate case of Hugo Alfredo Tale-Yax demonstrates, intervening may cost the life of the helper.

The potential rewards of helping someone will also enter into the equation, perhaps offsetting the cost of helping. Thanks from the recipient of help may be a sufficient reward. If helpful acts are recognized by others, helpers may receive social rewards of praise or monetary rewards. Even avoiding feelings of guilt if one does not help may be considered a benefit. Potential helpers consider how much helping will cost and compare those costs to the rewards that might be realized; it is the economics of helping. If costs outweigh the rewards, helping is less likely. If rewards are greater than cost, helping is more likely.

Finally, the question of why a person would help needs to be asked. What motivation is there for that behavior? Psychologists have suggested that 1) evolutionary forces may serve to predispose humans to help others, 2) egoistic concerns may determine if and when help will be given, and 3) selfless, altruistic motives may also promote helping in some cases.

Evolutionary Roots for Prosocial Behavior

Our evolutionary past may provide keys about why we help (Buss, 2004). Our very survival was no doubt promoted by the prosocial relations with clan and family members, and, as a hereditary consequence, we may now be especially likely to help those closest to us—blood-related relatives with whom we share a genetic heritage. According to evolutionary psychology, we are helpful in ways that increase the chances that our DNA will be passed along to future generations (Burnstein, Crandall, & Kitayama, 1994)—the goal of the “selfish gene” (Dawkins, 1976). Our personal DNA may not always move on, but we can still be successful in getting some portion of our DNA transmitted if our daughters, sons, nephews, nieces, and cousins survive to produce offspring. The favoritism shown for helping our blood relatives is called kin selection (Hamilton, 1964).

But, we do not restrict our relationships just to our own family members. We live in groups that include individuals who are unrelated to us, and we often help them too. Why? Reciprocal altruism (Trivers, 1971) provides the answer. Because of reciprocal altruism, we are all better off in the long run if we help one another. If helping someone now increases the chances that you will be helped later, then your overall chances of survival are increased. There is the chance that someone will take advantage of your help and not return your favors. But people seem predisposed to identify those who fail to reciprocate, and punishments including social exclusion may result (Buss, 2004). Cheaters will not enjoy the benefit of help from others, reducing the likelihood of the survival of themselves and their kin.

Evolutionary forces may provide a general inclination for being helpful, but they may not be as good an explanation for why we help in the here and now. What factors serve as proximal influences for decisions to help?

Egoistic Motivation for Helping

Most people would like to think that they help others because they are concerned about the other person’s plight. In truth, the reasons why we help may be more about ourselves than others: Egoistic or selfish motivations may make us help. Implicitly, we may ask, “What’s in it for me ?” There are two major theories that explain what types of reinforcement helpers may be seeking. The negative state relief model (e.g., Cialdini, Darby, & Vincent, 1973; Cialdini, Kenrick, & Baumann, 1982) suggests that people sometimes help in order to make themselves feel better. Whenever we are feeling sad, we can use helping someone else as a positive mood boost to feel happier. Through socialization, we have learned that helping can serve as a secondary reinforcement that will relieve negative moods (Cialdini & Kenrick, 1976).

The arousal: cost–reward model provides an additional way to understand why people help (e.g., Piliavin, Dovidio, Gaertner, & Clark, 1981). This model focuses on the aversive feelings aroused by seeing another in need. If you have ever heard an injured puppy yelping in pain, you know that feeling, and you know that the best way to relieve that feeling is to help and to comfort the puppy. Similarly, when we see someone who is suffering in some way (e.g., injured, homeless, hungry), we vicariously experience a sympathetic arousal that is unpleasant, and we are motivated to eliminate that aversive state. One way to do that is to help the person in need. By eliminating the victim’s pain, we eliminate our own aversive arousal. Helping is an effective way to alleviate our own discomfort.

As an egoistic model, the arousal: cost–reward model explicitly includes the cost/reward considerations that come into play. Potential helpers will find ways to cope with the aversive arousal that will minimize their costs—maybe by means other than direct involvement. For example, the costs of directly confronting a knife-wielding assailant might stop a bystander from getting involved, but the cost of some indirect help (e.g., calling the police) may be acceptable. In either case, the victim’s need is addressed. Unfortunately, if the costs of helping are too high, bystanders may reinterpret the situation to justify not helping at all. We now know that the attack of Kitty Genovese was a murderous assault, but it may have been misperceived as a lover’s spat by someone who just wanted to go back to sleep. For some, fleeing the situation causing their distress may do the trick (Piliavin et al., 1981).

The egoistically based negative state relief model and the arousal: cost–reward model see the primary motivation for helping as being the helper’s own outcome. Recognize that the victim’s outcome is of relatively little concern to the helper—benefits to the victim are incidental byproducts of the exchange (Dovidio et al., 2006). The victim may be helped, but the helper’s real motivation according to these two explanations is egoistic: Helpers help to the extent that it makes them feel better.

Altruistic Help

Photo of an older woman sitting on the sidewalk, reaching in her purse to give money to a monk.

Although many researchers believe that egoism is the only motivation for helping, others suggest that altruism —helping that has as its ultimate goal the improvement of another’s welfare—may also be a motivation for helping under the right circumstances. Batson (2011) has offered the empathy–altruism model to explain altruistically motivated helping for which the helper expects no benefits. According to this model, the key for altruism is empathizing with the victim, that is, putting oneself in the shoes of the victim and imagining how the victim must feel. When taking this perspective and having empathic concern , potential helpers become primarily interested in increasing the well-being of the victim, even if the helper must incur some costs that might otherwise be easily avoided. The empathy–altruism model does not dismiss egoistic motivations; helpers not empathizing with a victim may experience personal distress and have an egoistic motivation, not unlike the feelings and motivations explained by the arousal: cost–reward model. Because egoistically motivated individuals are primarily concerned with their own cost–benefit outcomes, they are less likely to help if they think they can escape the situation with no costs to themselves. In contrast, altruistically motivated helpers are willing to accept the cost of helping to benefit a person with whom they have empathized—this “self-sacrificial” approach to helping is the hallmark of altruism (Batson, 2011).

Although there is still some controversy about whether people can ever act for purely altruistic motives, it is important to recognize that, while helpers may derive some personal rewards by helping another, the help that has been given is also benefitting someone who was in need. The residents who offered food, blankets, and shelter to stranded runners who were unable to get back to their hotel rooms because of the Boston Marathon bombing undoubtedly received positive rewards because of the help they gave, but those stranded runners who were helped got what they needed badly as well. “In fact, it is quite remarkable how the fates of people who have never met can be so intertwined and complementary. Your benefit is mine; and mine is yours” (Dovidio et al., 2006, p. 143).

The next time you see someone needing help, observe your surroundings. Look to see if the bystander effect is in action and take measures to make sure the person gets help. If you aren’t able to help, notify an adult or authority figure that can.
What do you think is the primary motive for helping behavior: egoism or altruism? Are there any professions in which people are being “pure” altruists, or are some egoistic motivations always playing a role?

Prejudice, Discrimination, and Aggression

Computer generated image of the earth with groups of people standing around. Each group is a different color of the rainbow.

Define and provide examples of prejudice, stereotypes, and discrimination
Explain why prejudice and discrimination exist while demonstrating an understanding of scapegoat theory, in-groups, and out-groups
Describe aggression and bullying

Prejudice and Discrimination

Human conflict can result in crime, war, and mass murder, such as genocide. Prejudice and discrimination often are root causes of human conflict, which explains how strangers come to hate one another to the extreme of causing others harm. Prejudice and discrimination affect everyone. In this section we will examine the definitions of prejudice and discrimination, examples of these concepts, and causes of these biases.

Photograph A shows a sign written in German. Photograph B shows a man drinking at a drinking fountain. Photograph C shows two people holding signs with hate messages.

Understanding Prejudice and Discrimination

As we discussed in the opening story of Trayvon Martin, humans are very diverse and although we share many similarities, we also have many differences. The social groups we belong to help form our identities (Tajfel, 1974). These differences may be difficult for some people to reconcile, which may lead to prejudice toward people who are different. Prejudice is a negative attitude and feeling toward an individual based solely on one’s membership in a particular social group (Allport, 1954; Brown, 2010). Prejudice is common against people who are members of an unfamiliar cultural group. Thus, certain types of education, contact, interactions, and building relationships with members of different cultural groups can reduce the tendency toward prejudice. In fact, simply imagining interacting with members of different cultural groups might affect prejudice. Indeed, when experimental participants were asked to imagine themselves positively interacting with someone from a different group, this led to an increased positive attitude toward the other group and an increase in positive traits associated with the other group. Furthermore, imagined social interaction can reduce anxiety associated with inter-group interactions (Crisp & Turner, 2009). What are some examples of social groups that you belong to that contribute to your identity? Social groups can include gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, social class, religion, sexual orientation, profession, and many more. And, as is true for social roles, you can simultaneously be a member of more than one social group. An example of prejudice is having a negative attitude toward people who are not born in the United States. Although people holding this prejudiced attitude do not know all people who were not born in the United States, they dislike them due to their status as foreigners.

Can you think of a prejudiced attitude you have held toward a group of people? How did your prejudice develop? Prejudice often begins in the form of a stereotype —that is, a negative belief about individuals based solely on their membership in a group, regardless of their individual characteristics. Stereotypes become overgeneralized and applied to all members of a group. For example, someone holding prejudiced attitudes toward older adults, may believe that older adults are slow and incompetent (Cuddy, Norton, & Fiske, 2005; Nelson, 2004). We cannot possibly know each individual person of advanced age to know that all older adults are slow and incompetent. Therefore, this negative belief is overgeneralized to all members of the group, even though many of the individual group members may in fact be spry and intelligent.

Another example of a well-known stereotype involves beliefs about racial differences among athletes. As Hodge, Burden, Robinson, and Bennett (2008) point out, Black male athletes are often believed to be more athletic, yet less intelligent, than their White male counterparts. These beliefs persist despite a number of high profile examples to the contrary. Sadly, such beliefs often influence how these athletes are treated by others and how they view themselves and their own capabilities. Whether or not you agree with a stereotype, stereotypes are generally well-known within in a given culture (Devine, 1989).

Sometimes people will act on their prejudiced attitudes toward a group of people, and this behavior is known as discrimination. Discrimination is negative action toward an individual as a result of one’s membership in a particular group (Allport, 1954; Dovidio & Gaertner, 2004). As a result of holding negative beliefs (stereotypes) and negative attitudes (prejudice) about a particular group, people often treat the target of prejudice poorly, such as excluding older adults from their circle of friends. Table 3 summarizes the characteristics of stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination. Have you ever been the target of discrimination? If so, how did this negative treatment make you feel?

Table 3. Connecting Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination
Item	Function	Connection	Example
Stereotype	Cognitive; thoughts about people	Overgeneralized beliefs about people may lead to prejudice.	“Yankees fans are arrogant and obnoxious.”
Prejudice	Affective; feelings about people, both positive and negative	Feelings may influence treatment of others, leading to discrimination.	“I hate Yankees fans; they make me angry.”
Discrimination	Behavior; positive or negative treatment of others	Holding stereotypes and harboring prejudice may lead to excluding, avoiding, and biased treatment of group members.	“I would never hire nor become friends with a person if I knew he or she were a Yankees fan.”

So far, we’ve discussed stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination as negative thoughts, feelings, and behaviors because these are typically the most problematic. However, it is important to also point out that people can hold positive thoughts, feelings, and behaviors toward individuals based on group membership; for example, they would show preferential treatment for people who are like themselves—that is, who share the same gender, race, or favorite sports team.

Types of Prejudice and Discrimination

Racism is prejudice and discrimination against an individual based solely on one’s membership in a specific racial group (such as toward African Americans, Asian Americans, Latinos, Native Americans, European Americans). What are some stereotypes of various racial or ethnic groups? Research suggests cultural stereotypes for Asian Americans include cold, sly, and intelligent; for Latinos, cold and unintelligent; for European Americans, cold and intelligent; and for African Americans, aggressive, athletic, and more likely to be law breakers (Devine & Elliot, 1995; Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002; Sommers & Ellsworth, 2000; Dixon & Linz, 2000).

Racism exists for many racial and ethnic groups. For example, Blacks are significantly more likely to have their vehicles searched during traffic stops than Whites, particularly when Blacks are driving in predominately White neighborhoods, (a phenomenon often termed “DWB,” or “driving while Black.”) (Rojek, Rosenfeld, & Decker, 2012)

Mexican Americans and other Latino groups also are targets of racism from the police and other members of the community. For example, when purchasing items with a personal check, Latino shoppers are more likely than White shoppers to be asked to show formal identification (Dovidio et al., 2010).

In one case of alleged harassment by the police, several East Haven, Connecticut, police officers were arrested on federal charges due to reportedly continued harassment and brutalization of Latinos. When the accusations came out, the mayor of East Haven was asked, “What are you doing for the Latino community today?” The Mayor responded, “I might have tacos when I go home, I’m not quite sure yet” (“East Haven Mayor,” 2012) This statement undermines the important issue of racial profiling and police harassment of Latinos, while belittling Latino culture by emphasizing an interest in a food product stereotypically associated with Latinos.

Racism is prevalent toward many other groups in the United States including Native Americans, Arab Americans, Jewish Americans, and Asian Americans. Have you witnessed racism toward any of these racial or ethnic groups? Are you aware of racism in your community?

One reason modern forms of racism, and prejudice in general, are hard to detect is related to the dual attitudes model (Wilson, Lindsey, & Schooler, 2000). Humans have two forms of attitudes: explicit attitudes, which are conscious and controllable, and implicit attitudes, which are unconscious and uncontrollable (Devine, 1989; Olson & Fazio, 2003). Because holding egalitarian views is socially desirable (Plant & Devine, 1998), most people do not show extreme racial bias or other prejudices on measures of their explicit attitudes. However, measures of implicit attitudes often show evidence of mild to strong racial bias or other prejudices (Greenwald, McGee, & Schwartz, 1998; Olson & Fazio, 2003).

Take one of the Implicit Association Tests about social attitudes. These tests were created by Harvard and designed to register implicit attitudes, or subtle biases, that we might not even know we have.

View this interactive about the Shelling Effect and consider its implications for reducing segregation.

Sexism is prejudice and discrimination toward individuals based on their sex. Typically, sexism takes the form of men holding biases against women, but either sex can show sexism toward their own or their opposite sex. Like racism, sexism may be subtle and difficult to detect. Common forms of sexism in modern society include gender role expectations, such as expecting women to be the caretakers of the household. Sexism also includes people’s expectations for how members of a gender group should behave. For example, women are expected to be friendly, passive, and nurturing, and when women behave in an unfriendly, assertive, or neglectful manner they often are disliked for violating their gender role (Rudman, 1998). Research by Laurie Rudman (1998) finds that when female job applicants self-promote, they are likely to be viewed as competent, but they may be disliked and are less likely to be hired because they violated gender expectations for modesty. Sexism can exist on a societal level such as in hiring, employment opportunities, and education. Women are less likely to be hired or promoted in male-dominated professions such as engineering, aviation, and construction (Figure 27) (Blau, Ferber, & Winkler, 2010; Ceci & Williams, 2011). Have you ever experienced or witnessed sexism? Think about your family members’ jobs or careers. Why do you think there are differences in the jobs women and men have, such as more women nurses but more male surgeons (Betz, 2008)?

A photograph shows an armed female soldier among a group of soldiers.

People often form judgments and hold expectations about people based on their age. These judgments and expectations can lead to ageism , or prejudice and discrimination toward individuals based solely on their age. Typically, ageism occurs against older adults, but ageism also can occur toward younger adults. Think of expectations you hold for older adults. How could someone’s expectations influence the feelings they hold toward individuals from older age groups? Ageism is widespread in U.S. culture (Nosek, 2005), and a common ageist attitude toward older adults is that they are incompetent, physically weak, and slow (Greenberg, Schimel, & Martens, 2002) and some people consider older adults less attractive. Some cultures, however, including some Asian, Latino, and African American cultures, both outside and within the United States afford older adults respect and honor.

Ageism can also occur toward younger adults. What expectations do you hold toward younger people? Does society expect younger adults to be immature and irresponsible? How might these two forms of ageism affect a younger and older adult who are applying for a sales clerk position?

Another form of prejudice is homophobia : prejudice and discrimination of individuals based solely on their sexual orientation. Like ageism, homophobia is a widespread prejudice in U.S. society that is tolerated by many people (Herek & McLemore, 2013; Nosek, 2005). Negative feelings often result in discrimination, such as the exclusion of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people from social groups and the avoidance of LGBT neighbors and co-workers. This discrimination also extends to employers deliberately declining to hire qualified LGBT job applicants. Have you experienced or witnessed homophobia? If so, what stereotypes, prejudiced attitudes, and discrimination were evident?

Why do Prejudice and Discrimination Exist?

Prejudice and discrimination persist in society due to social learning and conformity to social norms. Children learn prejudiced attitudes and beliefs from society: their parents, teachers, friends, the media, and other sources of socialization, such as Facebook (O’Keeffe & Clarke-Pearson, 2011). If certain types of prejudice and discrimination are acceptable in a society, there may be normative pressures to conform and share those prejudiced beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors. For example, public and private schools are still somewhat segregated by social class. Historically, only children from wealthy families could afford to attend private schools, whereas children from middle- and low-income families typically attended public schools. If a child from a low-income family received a merit scholarship to attend a private school, how might the child be treated by classmates? Can you recall a time when you held prejudiced attitudes or beliefs or acted in a discriminatory manner because your group of friends expected you to?

Stereotypes and Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

When we hold a stereotype about a person, we have expectations that he or she will fulfill that stereotype. A self-fulfilling prophecy is an expectation held by a person that alters his or her behavior in a way that tends to make it true. When we hold stereotypes about a person, we tend to treat the person according to our expectations. This treatment can influence the person to act according to our stereotypic expectations, thus confirming our stereotypic beliefs. Research by Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968) found that disadvantaged students whose teachers expected them to perform well had higher grades than disadvantaged students whose teachers expected them to do poorly.

Consider this example of cause and effect in a self-fulfilling prophecy: If an employer expects an openly gay male job applicant to be incompetent, the potential employer might treat the applicant negatively during the interview by engaging in less conversation, making little eye contact, and generally behaving coldly toward the applicant (Hebl, Foster, Mannix, & Dovidio, 2002). In turn, the job applicant will perceive that the potential employer dislikes him, and he will respond by giving shorter responses to interview questions, making less eye contact, and generally disengaging from the interview. After the interview, the employer will reflect on the applicant’s behavior, which seemed cold and distant, and the employer will conclude, based on the applicant’s poor performance during the interview, that the applicant was in fact incompetent. Thus, the employer’s stereotype—gay men are incompetent and do not make good employees—is reinforced. Do you think this job applicant is likely to be hired? Treating individuals according to stereotypic beliefs can lead to prejudice and discrimination.

Another dynamic that can reinforce stereotypes is confirmation bias. When interacting with the target of our prejudice, we tend to pay attention to information that is consistent with our stereotypic expectations and ignore information that is inconsistent with our expectations. In this process, known as confirmation bias , we seek out information that supports our stereotypes and ignore information that is inconsistent with our stereotypes (Wason & Johnson-Laird, 1972). In the job interview example, the employer may not have noticed that the job applicant was friendly and engaging, and that he provided competent responses to the interview questions in the beginning of the interview. Instead, the employer focused on the job applicant’s performance in the later part of the interview, after the applicant changed his demeanor and behavior to match the interviewer’s negative treatment.

Have you ever fallen prey to the self-fulfilling prophecy or confirmation bias, either as the source or target of such bias? How might we stop the cycle of the self-fulfilling prophecy? Social class stereotypes of individuals tend to arise when information about the individual is ambiguous. If information is unambiguous, stereotypes do not tend to arise (Baron et al., 1995).

Watch the following clip to learn more about stereotype threats.

You can view the transcript for “How Stereotypes Affect Your Test Scores” here (opens in new window) .

In-Groups and Out-Groups

A photograph shows children climbing on playground equipment.

As discussed previously in this section, we all belong to a gender, race, age, and social economic group. These groups provide a powerful source of our identity and self-esteem (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). These groups serve as our in-groups. An in-group is a group that we identify with or see ourselves as belonging to. A group that we don’t belong to, or an out-group , is a group that we view as fundamentally different from us. For example, if you are female, your gender in-group includes all females, and your gender out-group includes all males (Figure 28). People often view gender groups as being fundamentally different from each other in personality traits, characteristics, social roles, and interests. Because we often feel a strong sense of belonging and emotional connection to our in-groups, we develop in-group bias : a preference for our own group over other groups. This in-group bias can result in prejudice and discrimination because the out-group is perceived as different and is less preferred than our in-group.

Despite the group dynamics that seem only to push groups toward conflict, there are forces that promote reconciliation between groups: the expression of empathy, of acknowledgment of past suffering on both sides, and the halt of destructive behaviors.

One function of prejudice is to help us feel good about ourselves and maintain a positive self-concept. This need to feel good about ourselves extends to our in-groups: We want to feel good and protect our in-groups. We seek to resolve threats individually and at the in-group level. This often happens by blaming an out-group for the problem. Scapegoating is the act of blaming an out-group when the in-group experiences frustration or is blocked from obtaining a goal (Allport, 1954).

Give an example when you felt that someone was prejudiced against you. What do you think caused this attitude? Did this person display any discrimination behaviors and, if so, how?
Give an example when you felt prejudiced against someone else. How did you discriminate against them? Why do you think you did this?

A photograph shows two monkeys face to face.

A modern form of aggression is bullying. As you learn in your study of child development, socializing and playing with other children is beneficial for children’s psychological development. However, as you may have experienced as a child, not all play behavior has positive outcomes. Some children are aggressive and want to play roughly. Other children are selfish and do not want to share toys. One form of negative social interactions among children that has become a national concern is bullying. Bullying is repeated negative treatment of another person, often an adolescent, over time (Olweus, 1993). A one-time incident in which one child hits another child on the playground would not be considered bullying: Bullying is repeated behavior. The negative treatment typical in bullying is the attempt to inflict harm, injury, or humiliation, and bullying can include physical or verbal attacks. However, bullying doesn’t have to be physical or verbal, it can be psychological. Research finds gender differences in how girls and boys bully others (American Psychological Association, 2010; Olweus, 1993). Boys tend to engage in direct, physical aggression such as physically harming others. Girls tend to engage in indirect, social forms of aggression such as spreading rumors, ignoring, or socially isolating others. Based on what you have learned about child development and social roles, why do you think boys and girls display different types of bullying behavior?

Bullying involves three parties: the bully, the victim, and witnesses or bystanders. The act of bullying involves an imbalance of power with the bully holding more power—physically, emotionally, and/or socially over the victim. The experience of bullying can be positive for the bully, who may enjoy a boost to self-esteem. However, there are several negative consequences of bullying for the victim, and also for the bystanders. How do you think bullying negatively impacts adolescents? Being the victim of bullying is associated with decreased mental health, including experiencing anxiety and depression (APA, 2010). Victims of bullying may underperform in schoolwork (Bowen, 2011). Bullying also can result in the victim committing suicide (APA, 2010). How might bullying negatively affect witnesses?

Although there is not one single personality profile for who becomes a bully and who becomes a victim of bullying (APA, 2010), researchers have identified some patterns in children who are at a greater risk of being bullied (Olweus, 1993): Children who are emotionally reactive are at a greater risk for being bullied. Bullies may be attracted to children who get upset easily because the bully can quickly get an emotional reaction from them. Children who are different from others are likely to be targeted for bullying. Children who are overweight, cognitively impaired, or racially or ethnically different from their peer group may be at higher risk. Gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender teens are at very high risk of being bullied and hurt due to their sexual orientation.

Cyberbullying

A photograph shows a young person looking at a handheld electronic device.

With the rapid growth of technology, and widely available mobile technology and social networking media, a new form of bullying has emerged: cyberbullying (Hoff & Mitchell, 2009). Cyberbullying , like bullying, is repeated behavior that is intended to cause psychological or emotional harm to another person. What is unique about cyberbullying is that it is typically covert, concealed, done in private, and the bully can remain anonymous. This anonymity gives the bully power, and the victim may feel helpless, unable to escape the harassment, and unable to retaliate (Spears, Slee, Owens, & Johnson, 2009).

Cyberbullying can take many forms, including harassing a victim by spreading rumors, creating a website defaming the victim, and ignoring, insulting, laughing at, or teasing the victim (Spears et al., 2009). In cyberbullying, it is more common for girls to be the bullies and victims because cyberbullying is nonphysical and is a less direct form of bullying (Figure 30) (Hoff & Mitchell, 2009). Interestingly, girls who become cyberbullies often have been the victims of cyberbullying at one time (Vandebosch & Van Cleemput, 2009). The effects of cyberbullying are just as harmful as traditional bullying and include the victim feeling frustration, anger, sadness, helplessness, powerlessness, and fear. Victims will also experience lower self-esteem (Hoff & Mitchell, 2009; Spears et al., 2009). Furthermore, recent research suggests that both cyberbullying victims and perpetrators are more likely to experience suicidal ideation, and they are more likely to attempt suicide than individuals who have no experience with cyberbullying (Hinduja & Patchin, 2010). What features of technology make cyberbullying easier and perhaps more accessible to young adults? What can parents, teachers, and social networking websites, like Facebook, do to prevent cyberbullying?

The Social Psychology of Culture

Although the most visible elements of culture are dress, cuisine and architecture, culture is a highly psychological phenomenon. Culture is a pattern of meaning for understanding how the world works. This knowledge is shared among a group of people and passed from one generation to the next. This section defines culture, addresses methodological issues, and introduces the idea that culture is a process. Understanding cultural processes can help people get along better with others and be more socially responsible.

Appreciate culture as an evolutionary adaptation common to all humans.
Understand cultural processes as variable patterns rather than as fixed scripts.
Define “self-construal” and provide a real life example.

A group of Malaysian fashion models pose in colorful headscarves, long-sleeved blouses, and floor-length dresses.

Just as culture can be seen in dress and food, it can also be seen in morality, identity, and gender roles. People from around the world differ in their views of premarital sex, religious tolerance, respect for elders, and even the importance they place on having fun. Similarly, many behaviors that may seem innate are actually products of culture. Approaches to punishment, for example, often depend on cultural norms for their effectiveness. In the United States, people who ride public transportation without buying a ticket face the possibility of being fined. By contrast, in some other societies, people caught dodging the fare are socially shamed by having their photos posted publicly. The reason this campaign of “name and shame” might work in one society but not in another is that members of different cultures differ in how comfortable they are with being singled out for attention. This strategy is less effective for people who are not as sensitive to the threat of public shaming.

The psychological aspects of culture are often overlooked because they are often invisible. The way that gender roles are learned is a cultural process as is the way that people think about their own sense of duty toward their family members. In this module, you will be introduced to one of the most fascinating aspects of social psychology: the study of cultural processes. You will learn basic definitions related to this topic and about the ways that culture affects a person’s sense of self.

Defining Culture

Like the words “happiness” and “intelligence,” the word “culture” can be tricky to define. Culture is a word that suggests social patterns of shared meaning . In essence, it is a collective understanding of the way the world works, shared by members of a group and passed down from one generation to the next. For example, members of the Yanomamö tribe, in South America, share a cultural understanding of the world that includes the idea that there are four parallel levels to reality that include an abandoned level, and earthly level and heavenly and hell-like levels. Similarly, members of surfing culture understand their athletic pastime as being worthwhile and governed by formal rules of etiquette known only to insiders. There are several features of culture that are central to understanding the uniqueness and diversity of the human mind:

Versatility : Culture can change and adapt. Someone from the state of Orissa, in India, for example, may have multiple identities. She might see herself as Oriya when at home and speaking her native language. At other times, such as during the national cricket match against Pakistan, she might consider herself Indian. This is known as situational identity .
Sharing : Culture is the product of people sharing with one another. Humans cooperate and share knowledge and skills with other members of their networks. The ways they share, and the content of what they share, helps make up culture. Older adults, for instance, remember a time when long-distance friendships were maintained through letters that arrived in the mail every few months. Contemporary youth culture accomplishes the same goal through the use of instant text messages on smart phones.
Accumulation : Cultural knowledge is cumulative. That is, information is “stored.” This means that a culture’s collective learning grows across generations. We understand more about the world today than we did 200 years ago, but that doesn’t mean the culture from long ago has been erased by the new. For instance, members of the Haida culture—a First Nations people in British Columbia, Canada—profit from both ancient and modern experiences. They might employ traditional fishing practices and wisdom stories while also using modern technologies and services.
Patterns : There are systematic and predictable ways of behavior or thinking across members of a culture. Patterns emerge from adapting, sharing, and storing cultural information. Patterns can be both similar and different across cultures. For example, in both Canada and India it is considered polite to bring a small gift to a host’s home. In Canada, it is more common to bring a bottle of wine and for the gift to be opened right away. In India, by contrast, it is more common to bring sweets, and often the gift is set aside to be opened later.

Understanding the changing nature of culture is the first step toward appreciating how it helps people. The concept of cultural intelligence is the ability to understand why members of other cultures act in the ways they do. Rather than dismissing foreign behaviors as weird, inferior, or immoral, people high in cultural intelligence can appreciate differences even if they do not necessarily share another culture’s views or adopt its ways of doing things.

Culture is Learned

It’s important to understand that culture is learned. People aren’t born using chopsticks or being good at soccer simply because they have a genetic predisposition for it. They learn to excel at these activities because they are born in countries like Argentina, where playing soccer is an important part of daily life, or in countries like Taiwan, where chopsticks are the primary eating utensils. So, how are such cultural behaviors learned? It turns out that cultural skills and knowledge are learned in much the same way a person might learn to do algebra or knit. They are acquired through a combination of explicit teaching and implicit learning—by observing and copying.

Cultural teaching can take many forms. It begins with parents and caregivers, because they are the primary influence on young children. Caregivers teach kids, both directly and by example, about how to behave and how the world works. They encourage children to be polite, reminding them, for instance, to say “Thank you.” They teach kids how to dress in a way that is appropriate for the culture. They introduce children to religious beliefs and the rituals that go with them. They even teach children how to think and feel! Adult men, for example, often exhibit a certain set of emotional expressions—such as being tough and not crying—that provides a model of masculinity for their children. This is why we see different ways of expressing the same emotions in different parts of the world.

Brazilian soccer fans dressed in the colors of the national team cheer wildly from the stands during a match.

In some societies, it is considered appropriate to conceal anger. Instead of expressing their feelings outright, people purse their lips, furrow their brows, and say little. In other cultures, however, it is appropriate to express anger. In these places, people are more likely to bare their teeth, furrow their brows, point or gesture, and yell (Matsumoto, Yoo, & Chung, 2010). Such patterns of behavior are learned. Often, adults are not even aware that they are, in essence, teaching psychology—because the lessons are happening through observational learning .

Let’s consider a single example of a way you behave that is learned, which might surprise you. All people gesture when they speak. We use our hands in fluid or choppy motions—to point things out, or to pantomime actions in stories. Consider how you might throw your hands up and exclaim, “I have no idea!” or how you might motion to a friend that it’s time to go. Even people who are born blind use hand gestures when they speak, so to some degree this is a universal behavior , meaning all people naturally do it. However, social researchers have discovered that culture influences how a person gestures. Italians, for example, live in a society full of gestures. In fact, they use about 250 of them (Poggi, 2002)! Some are easy to understand, such as a hand against the belly, indicating hunger. Others, however, are more difficult. For example, pinching the thumb and index finger together and drawing a line backwards at face level means “perfect,” while knocking a fist on the side of one’s head means “stubborn.”

Beyond observational learning, cultures also use rituals to teach people what is important. For example, young people who are interested in becoming Buddhist monks often have to endure rituals that help them shed feelings of specialness or superiority—feelings that run counter to Buddhist doctrine. To do this, they might be required to wash their teacher’s feet, scrub toilets, or perform other menial tasks. Similarly, many Jewish adolescents go through the process of bar and bat mitzvah . This is a ceremonial reading from scripture that requires the study of Hebrew and, when completed, signals that the youth is ready for full participation in public worship.

Cultural Relativism

When social psychologists research culture, they try to avoid making value judgments. This is known as value-free research and is considered an important approach to scientific objectivity. But, while such objectivity is the goal, it is a difficult one to achieve. With this in mind, anthropologists have tried to adopt a sense of empathy for the cultures they study. This has led to cultural relativism , the principle of regarding and valuing the practices of a culture from the point of view of that culture. It is a considerate and practical way to avoid hasty judgments. Take for example, the common practice of same-sex friends in India walking in public while holding hands: this is a common behavior and a sign of connectedness between two people. In England, by contrast, holding hands is largely limited to romantically involved couples, and often suggests a sexual relationship. These are simply two different ways of understanding the meaning of holding hands. Someone who does not take a relativistic view might be tempted to see their own understanding of this behavior as superior and, perhaps, the foreign practice as being immoral.

Despite the fact that cultural relativism promotes the appreciation for cultural differences, it can also be problematic. At its most extreme it leaves no room for criticism of other cultures, even if certain cultural practices are horrific or harmful. Many practices have drawn criticism over the years. In Madagascar, for example, the famahidana funeral tradition includes bringing bodies out from tombs once every seven years, wrapping them in cloth, and dancing with them. Some people view this practice as disrespectful to the body of a deceased person. Another example can be seen in the historical Indian practice of sati —the burning to death of widows on their deceased husband’s funeral pyre. This practice was outlawed by the British when they colonized India. Today, a debate rages about the ritual cutting of genitals of children in several Middle Eastern and African cultures. To a lesser extent, this same debate arises around the circumcision of baby boys in Western hospitals. When considering harmful cultural traditions, it can be patronizing to the point of racism to use cultural relativism as an excuse for avoiding debate. To assume that people from other cultures are neither mature enough nor responsible enough to consider criticism from the outside is demeaning.

Two boys walk together down a busy street in Bangalore, India while holding hands.

Positive cultural relativism is the belief that the world would be a better place if everyone practiced some form of intercultural empathy and respect. This approach offers a potentially important contribution to theories of cultural progress: to better understand human behavior, people should avoid adopting extreme views that block discussions about the basic morality or usefulness of cultural practices.

We live in a unique moment in history. We are experiencing the rise of a global culture in which people are connected and able to exchange ideas and information better than ever before. International travel and business are on the rise. Instantaneous communication and social media are creating networks of contacts who would never otherwise have had a chance to connect. Education is expanding, music and films cross national borders, and state-of-the-art technology affects us all. In this world, an understanding of what culture is and how it happens, can set the foundation for acceptance of differences and respectful disagreements. The science of social psychology—along with the other culture-focused sciences, such as anthropology and sociology—can help produce insights into cultural processes. These insights, in turn, can be used to increase the quality of intercultural dialogue, to preserve cultural traditions, and to promote self-awareness.

Learn more about different world cultures from the Database: Human Relations Area Files (HRAF) ‘World Cultures’ database http://hraf.yale.edu/

Putting It Together: Social Psychology

In this chapter, you learned to

recognize aspects of social psychology, including the fundamental attribution error, biases, social roles, and social norms, in your daily life
describe how attitudes can be changed through cognitive dissonance and persuasion
explain how conformity, obedience, groupthink, social facilitation, social loafing, and altruism relate to group behavior
explain prejudice, discrimination, and aggression
describe culture as it relates to social psychology

In this chapter, you learned about a wide spectrum of human behavior and interaction. Social psychology is fascinating, sometimes shocking (both figuratively and literally!), and ever-evolving. You learned about the way we attribute our own and other people’s behavior to either situational or dispositional factors and how we have a tendency to fall prey to the fundamental attribution error. We are easily influenced by those around us, whether it be through persuasion or a desire to conform or obey. We also behave differently in groups, and sometimes show prejudices or discriminate against those who aren’t like us.

Jonah Berger, a marketing professor at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, recently wrote a book called Invisible Influence: The Hidden Forces That Shape Behavior , in which he examines our desire to fit in, yet not be like everyone else. He was interviewed by Ilaria Schlitz for The Psych Report. Read their interview below and consider how Berger’s responses fit in with the things you learned about in this module.

3D stick figures carrying briefcases walking in rows, signifying conformity.

Jonah Berger: The research actually started with an anecdote. I was in Washington, DC visiting my family and talking to my father. I was telling him I was doing some research on social influence and he was lamenting social influence’s affect on the world. He was saying, “Oh God, in DC, lawyers are all so heavily influenced. When they become partner, the first thing they do is buy a new BMW.” What I pointed out is that that’s true Dad, but you’re a DC lawyer, you drive a BMW. He said, “No, but I drive a blue one and they all drive gray ones.”

Sometimes we see influence—we readily see our peers doing the same thing as the folks next to them. Yet there’s one place where we often fail to see influence, and that is ourselves. Often because it has a nonconscious effect on our behavior, we are not aware that it is influencing us. The effect that it has is not as simplistic as we might think. We often tend to think of influence as conforming or imitation, people doing the same thing as others. That happens sometimes, but just as often people differentiate themselves. People don’t just do one or the other, they do both simultaneously. They want to be optimally distinct, or similar but different. Invisible Influence is all about how sometimes seemingly conflicting motivations shape our behavior, and how by understanding the science we can all live healthier and happier lives.

IS: Is social influence really inevitable or is it possible to overcome it by being aware of the ways we are influenced?

JB: The most interesting question is not if we can correct against it, but should we correct against it. We definitely have this notion that being influenced is bad, and indeed there are cases where being influenced is bad, but there are just as many cases where being influenced is helpful. Imagine that you had to pick where to go out to eat or what movie to watch without talking to anyone else—you couldn’t use online reviews, you couldn’t ask your friends. Life would be a lot harder. Others often provide useful information that helps us make better and faster decisions. They also help us get motivated. Comparing ourselves to others encourages us to work harder and perform better. Just as influence can hurt, it can also help. The reason I wrote the book was really to help people be aware of influence. If we understand what influence is and when it’s happening, we can try to take advantage of its upsides and avoid its down sides

IS: In your book, you mention the role of influence in politics. What are some of the ways that you’ve noticed social influence being used in politics lately?

JB: I was recently working with a group that wanted conservatives to support clean energy. If you think about it, conservatives should love this type of energy. It’s cheaper, which is something conservatives like. It reduces reliance on foreign oil, which helps national security. Conservatives should support clean energy and yet they don’t. When you ask conservatives why, one politician said it very nicely, he said, “Clean energy? That’s something Al Gore supports and if Al Gore supports something then it’s probably not for me.”

Even something like politics, where we think it’s all about the issues, what something signals or communicates has a big impact on behavior. There’s a very nice body of research showing that party often matters more than policy. If you’re looking at a particular policy, how you vote on that policy depends almost entirely on whether you think that policy is supported by your party or the opposite party. Even in important decisions such as how we vote, others have an impact on our decisions.

IS: How do companies take advantage of the extent to which social influence affects what people buy? Is there a company that comes to mind that harnesses social influence in a particularly positive way?

JB: It’s not just companies using influence to sell stuff. Movember [has] done a great job of using social influence to raise hundreds of millions of dollars for men’s cancers. Donations are usually a private behavior, people have no idea what someone’s donating to. Because of that, we can’t follow suit. We have no idea what they’re doing, so we can’t imitate their behavior. Movember came along and said let’s make a public signal of an otherwise private act. You’re not just donating money, you’re wearing a mustache. Because you’re wearing a mustache, it’s easier for people to see that you donated and as a result other people are more likely to donate. Whether we’re buying a car because our neighbor bought one recently, or we’re supporting a cause because we can tell that people are doing it, companies and organizations that make behavior visible can harness influence to get their message to catch on.

IS: What are some ways that individuals can harness social influence to make positive changes in their own lives?

JB: Any time we’re trying to achieve something, whether we’re trying to lose weight, exercise more, put in extra hours at the office, peers are a powerful motivating force. We did some research showing that NBA basketball teams are actually more likely to win when they are behind, but just by a little, because that gap causes people to be motivated and try harder. If you’re trying to lose weight for example, rather than just doing it by yourself, pair up with someone else and say “Hey, who can lose 15 pounds faster?” Or if you’re trying to run faster or train harder, rather than training at home, work out at the gym where other people are around. Running on a treadmill next to someone, rather than far away, will actually motivate you to work harder. Social facilitation can increase performance and encourage us to do better. Rather than trying to control or motivate our behavior by ourselves, others are often a better way to do it.

IS: Is there anything else you’d like to add?

JB: These motivations often don’t live on their own. We often think about conforming and imitation and then we think about differentiation and uniqueness, but these two things often work in concert. We want to be similar but different. We want to be, in some sense, optimally distinct. It’s a little bit like Goldilocks. I call it the Goldilocks effect, where too similar is bad—we don’t want to be the same as everybody else—but too different is also bad—we don’t want to stand out and have no one else be like us. We’re trying to walk the line between being similar and different—being part of a group, feeling kinship, feeling support and validation for our choices, but also feeling unique and special by differentiating ourselves from the group.

Albarracín, D., & Wyer, R. S. (2001). Elaborative and nonelaborative processing of a behavior-related communication. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 691–705.

Allport, G. W. (1954). The Nature of Human Prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.

American Psychological Association (2010). Bullying: What parents, teachers can do to stop it. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2010/04/bullying.aspx.

Aronson, E., & Mills, J. (1959). The effect of severity of initiation on liking for a group, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 59, 177–181.

Asch, S. E. (1955). Opinions and social pressure. Scientific American, 193, 31–35.

Baron, R. M., Albright, L., & Malloy, T. E. (1995). Effects of behavioral and social class information on social judgment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 308–315.

Batson, C. D. (1991). The altruism question: Toward a social-psychological answer. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Berkowitz, A. D. (2004). The social norms approach: Theory, research and annotated bibliography. Retrieved from http://www.alanberkowitz.com/articles/social_norms.pdf.

Berkowitz, L. (1993). Aggression: Its causes, consequences, and control. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Betz, N. E. (2008). Women’s career development. In F. Denmark & M. Paludi (Eds.), Psychology of women: Handbook of issues and theories (2nd ed., pp. 717–752). Westport, CT: Praeger.

Blau, F. D., Ferber, M. A., & Winkler, A. E. (2010). The economics of women, men, and work (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bond, C. F., & Titus, L. J. (1983). Social facilitation: A meta-analysis of 241 studies. Psychological Bulletin, 94, 265–292.

Bond, R., & Smith, P. B. (1996). Culture and conformity: A meta-analysis of studies using Asch’s (1952b, 1956) line judgment task. Psychological Bulletin, 119(1), 111–137.

Bowen, L. (2011). Bullying may contribute to lower test scores. Monitor on Psychology, 42(9), 19.

Brown, R. (2010). Prejudice: Its social psychology (2nd ed.). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

Brown, P., & Minty, J. (2006, December 1). Media coverage and charitable giving after the 2004 tsunami. Working Paper 2006-002. Goldfarb Working Papers series, Colby College. Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.colby.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1003&context=goldfarb_wpec

Buss, D. M. (2004). Evolutionary psychology: The new science of the mind (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1–49.

Ceci, S. J., & Williams, W. M. (2011). Understanding current causes of women’s underrepresentation in science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108, 3157–3162.

Choi, I., & Nisbett R. E. (1998). Situational salience and cultural differences in the correspondence bias and actor-observer bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(9), 949–960. doi:10.1177/0146167298249003.

Cialdini, R. B. (2001). Harnessing the science of persuasion. Harvard Business Review, 79, 72–81.

Cialdini, R. B., Brown, S. L., Lewis, B. P., Luce, C., & Neuberg, S. L. (1997). Reinterpreting the empathy-altruism relationship: When one into one equals oneness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 481–494.

Colin Powell regrets Iraq war intelligence. (2011). Retrieved March 23, 2014, from http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2011/09/20119116916873488.html.

Crisp, R. J., & Turner, R. N. (2009). Can imagined interactions produce positive perceptions? Reducing prejudice through simulated social contact. American Psychologist, 64, 231–240.

Crowley, A. E., & Hoyer, W. D. (1994). An integrative framework for understanding two-sided persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(4), 561–574.

Croyle, R. T., & Cooper, J. (1983). Dissonance arousal: Physiological evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 782–791.

Cuddy, A. J., Norton, M. I., & Fiske, S. T. (2005). This old stereotype: The pervasiveness and persistence of the elderly stereotype. Journal of Social Issues, 61, 267–285.

Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H. (1955). A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51, 629–636.

Devine, P. G. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 5–18.

Devine, P. G., & Elliot, A. J. (1995). Are racial stereotypes really fading? The Princeton trilogy revisited. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 1139–1150.

Dixon, T. L., & Linz D. (2000). Overrepresentation and underrepresentation of African Americans and Latinos as lawbreakers on television news. Journal of Communication, 50(2), 131–154.

Dodge, K. A., & Schwartz, D. (1997). Social information processing mechanisms in aggressive behavior. In D. M. Stoff and J. Breiling (Eds.), Handbook of Antisocial Behavior (pp. 171–180). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.

Dollard, J., Miller, N. E., Doob, L. W., Mowrer, O. H., & Sears, R. R. (1939). Frustration and aggression. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (2004). On the nature of contemporary prejudice. In P. S. Rothenberg, (Ed.), Race, class, and gender in the United States: An integrated study (6th ed., pp. 132–142). New York, NY: Worth.

Dovidio, J. F., Gluszek, A., John, M. S., Ditlmann, R., & Lagunes, P. (2010). Understanding bias toward Latinos: Discrimination, dimensions of difference, and experience of exclusion. Journal of Social Issues, 66, 59–78.

Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1975). An attribution analysis of the effect of communicator characteristics on opinion change: The case of communicator attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 136–144.

Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College.

East Haven mayor suggests “he might have tacos” to repair relations with Latinos. (2012). Retrieved April 27, 2014, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCUwtfqF4wU.

Ehrlinger, J., Gilovich, T., & Ross, L. (2005). Peering into the bias blind spot: People’s assessments of bias in themselves and others. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 680–692.

Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Festinger, L., & Maccoby, N. (1964). On resistance to persuasive communications. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 68, 359–366.

Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 878–902.

Fiske, S. T., Gilbert, D. T., & Lindzey, G. (2010). Handbook of social psychology (5th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Freedman, J. L., & Fraser, S. C. (1966). Compliance without pressure: The foot-in-the-door technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 195–202.

Geen, R. G. (1989). Alternative conceptions of social facilitation. In P. B. Paulus (Ed.), Psychology of group influence (2nd ed., pp. 15–51). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Greenberg, J., Schimel, J., & Martens, A. (2002). Ageism: Denying the face of the future. In T. D. Nelson (Ed.), Ageism: Stereotyping and prejudice against older persons (pp. 27–48). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1464–1480.

Greenwald, A. G., & Ronis, D. L. (1978). Twenty years of cognitive dissonance: Case study of the evolution of a theory. Psychological Review, 85, 53–57.

Grove, J. R., Hanrahan, S. J., & McInman, A. (1991). Success/failure bias in attributions across involvement categories in sport. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17(1), 93–97.

Gupta, P. B., & Lord, K. R. (1998). Product placement in movies: The effect of prominence and mode on recall. Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 20, 47–59.

Haugtvedt, C. P., & Wegener, D. T. (1994). Message order effects in persuasion: An attitude strength perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 21, 205–218.

Hebl, M. R., Foster, J. B., Mannix, L. M., & Dovidio, J. F. (2002). Formal and interpersonal discrimination: A field study of bias toward homosexual applicants. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(6), 815–825.

Heckert, T. M., Latier, A., Ringwald-Burton, A., & Drazen, C. (2006). Relations among student effort, perceived class difficulty appropriateness, and student evaluations of teaching: Is it possible to “buy” better evaluations through lenient grading? College Student Journal, 40(3), 588.

Herek, G. M., & McLemore, K. A. (2013). Sexual prejudice. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 309–33. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143826.

Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.

Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2010). Bullying, cyberbullying, and suicide. Archives of Suicide Research, 14(3), 206–221.

Hinduja, S. & Patchin, J. W. (2011). Cyberbullying research summary: Bullying, cyberbullying, and sexual orientation. Cyberbullying Research Center. Retrieved April 27, 2014, from http://www.cyberbullying.us/cyberbullying_sexual_orientation_fact_sheet.pdf.

Hodge, S. R., Burden, J. W., Jr., Robinson, L. E., & Bennett, R. A., III. (2008). Theorizing on the stereotyping of black male student-athletes. Journal for the Study of Sports and Athletes in Education, 2, 203–226.

Hoff, D. L., & Mitchell, S. N. (2009). Cyberbullying: Causes, effects, and remedies. Journal of Education, 47, 652–665.

Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L. and Kelley, H. H. (1953). Communications and persuasion: Psychological studies in opinion change. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Hovland, C.I., Weiss, W. (1951, Winter). The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly, 15(4), 635–650.

Igou, E. R., & Bless, H. (2003). Inferring the importance of arguments: Order effects and conversational rules. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 91–99.

Ito, T. A., & Urland, G. R., (2003). Race and gender on the brain: Electrocortical measures of attention to race and gender of multiply categorizable individuals. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 85, 616–626.

Jackson, J. M., & Williams, K. D. (1985). Social loafing on difficult tasks: Working collectively can improve performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 937–942.

Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Jones, E. E., & Nisbett, R. E. (1971). The actor and the observer: Divergent perceptions of the causes of behavior. New York: General Learning Press.

Jost, J. T., Banaji, M. R., & Nosek, B. A. (2004). A decade of system justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Political Psychology, 25, 881–919.

Jost, J. T., & Major, B. (Eds.). (2001). The psychology of legitimacy: Emerging perspectives on ideology, justice, and intergroup relations. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 681–706.

Krosnick, J. A., & Alwin, D. F. (1989). Aging and susceptibility to attitude change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 416–425.

Kumkale, G. T., & Albarracín, D. (2004). The sleeper effect in persuasion: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 130(1), 143–172. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.130.1.143.

Larsen, K. S. (1990). The Asch conformity experiment: Replication and transhistorical comparisons. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 5(4), 163–168.

Latané, B., & Darley, J. M. (1968). Group inhibition of bystander intervention in emergencies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10, 215–221.

Latané, B., Williams, K. and Harkins, S. G. (1979). Many hands make light the work: The causes and consequences of social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 822–832.

Lerner, M. J., & Miller, D. T. (1978). Just world research and the attribution process: Looking back and ahead. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 1030–1051.

Lumsdaine, A. A., & Janis, I. L. (1953). Resistance to “counterpropaganda” produced by one-sided and two-sided “propaganda” presentations. Public Opinion Quarterly, 17, 311–318.

Malle, B. F. (2006). The actor–observer asymmetry in attribution: A (surprising) meta-analysis [Supplemental material]. Psychological Bulletin, 132(6), 895–919. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.132.6.895.

Malloy, T. E., Albright, L., Kenny, D. A., Agatstein, F., & Winquist, L. (1997). Interpersonal perception and metaperception in non-overlapping social groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 390–398.

Markus, H. (1977). Self-schemata and processing information about the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 35, 63-78.

Markus, H. & Kitiyama, S (1994).The cultural construction of self and emotion: Implications for social behavior. In S. Kitiyama & H. Markus (Eds), Emotion and Culture: Empirical studies of mutual influence . Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Markus, H. & Kitiyama, S (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion and motivation. Psychological Review , 98, 224-253.

Markus, H., Ryff, C., Curhan, K. & Palmersheim, K. (2004). In their own words: Well-being at midlife among high school and college educated adults. In O.G. Brim & C. Ryff (Eds), How healthy are we? A national study of well-being at midlife . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Martin, C. H., & Bull, P. (2008). Obedience and conformity in clinical practice. British Journal of Midwifery, 16(8), 504–509.

Matsumoto, D., Yoo, S. H., & Chung, J. (2010). The expression of anger across cultures. In M. Potegal, G. Stemmler, G., and C. Spielberger (Eds.) International handbook of anger (pp.125-137). New York, NY: Springer

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

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

Miller, D. T., & Ross, M. (1975). Self-serving biases in the attribution of causality: Fact or fiction? Psychological Bulletin, 82, 213–225.

Miller, N., & Campbell, D. T. (1959). Recency and primacy in persuasion as a function of the timing of speeches and measurements. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 59, 1–9.

Mischel, W. (1977). The interaction of person and situation. Personality at the crossroads: Current issues in interactional psychology, 333, 352.

Mitchell, D. H., & Eckstein, D. (2009). Jury dynamics and decision-making: A prescription for groupthink. International Journal of Academic Research, 1(1), 163–169.

Nelson, T. (Ed.). (2004). Ageism: Stereotyping and prejudice against older persons. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Nisbett, R. E., Caputo, C., Legant, P., & Marecek, J. (1973). Behavior as seen by the actor and as seen by the observer. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 27, 154–164.

Nisbett, R. E., Peng, K., Choi, I., & Norenzayan, A. (2001). Culture and systems of thought: Holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychological Review, 108, 291–310.

Nosek, B. A. (2005). Moderators of the relationship between implicit and explicit evaluation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 134(4), 565–584.

Olson, M. A., & Fazio, R. H. (2003). Relations between implicit measures of prejudice what are we measuring? Psychological Science, 14, 636–639.

Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change (pp. 1–24). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-4964-1.

Petty, R. E., Wegener, D. T., & Fabrigar, L. R. (1997). Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 609–647.

Pliner, P., Hart, H., Kohl, J., & Saari, D. (1974). Compliance without pressure: Some further data on the foot-in-the-door technique. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 17–22.

Plant, E. A., & Devine, P. G. (1998). Internal and external motivation to respond without prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 811–832.

Poggi, I. (2002). Towards the alphabet and the lexicon of gesture, gaze and touch . In Virtual Symposium on Multimodality of Human Communication. Retrieved from http://www.semioticon.com/virtuals/multimodality/geyboui41.pdf

Rhodes, N., & Wood, W. (1992). Self-esteem and intelligence affect influenceability: The mediating role of message reception. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 156–171.

Richard, F. D., Bond, C. F., Jr., & Stokes-Zoota, J. J. (2003). One hundred years of social psychology quantitatively described. Review of General Psychology, 7(4), 331–363. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.7.4.331.

Riggio, H. R., & Garcia, A. L. (2009). The power of situations: Jonestown and the fundamental attribution error. Teaching of Psychology, 36(2), 108–112. doi:10.1080/00986280902739636.

Roesch, S. C., & Amirkham, J. H. (1997). Boundary conditions for self-serving attributions: Another look at the sports pages. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 245–261.

Rojek, J., Rosenfeld, R., & Decker, S. (2012). Policing race: The racial stratification of searches in police traffic stops. Criminology, 50, 993–1024.

Rosenberg, M. J., & Hovland, C. I. (1960). Cognitive, affective and behavioral components of attitudes. In Attitude organization and change: An analysis of consistency among attitude components (pp. 1–14). New Haven and London: Yale University Press.

Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. F. (1968). Teacher expectations for the disadvantaged. Scientific American, 218, 19–23.

Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 173–220.

Ross, L., Amabile, T. M., & Steinmetz, J. L. (1977). Social roles, social control, and biases in social-perception processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 485–494.

Ross, L., & Nisbett, R. E. (1991). The person and the situation: Perspectives of social psychology. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Rudman, L. A. (1998). Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: The costs and benefits of counterstereotypical impression management. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(3), 629–645.

Schank, R. C., Abelson, R. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding: An inquiry into human knowledge. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Shepperd, J. A., & Taylor, K. M. (1999). Social loafing and expectancy-value theory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1147–1158.

Singh, D. (1993). Adaptive significance of female physical attractiveness: Role of waist-to-hip ratio. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 293–307.

Sommers, S. R., & Ellsworth, P. C. (2000). Race in the courtroom: Perceptions of guilt and dispositional attributions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1367–1379.

Spears, B., Slee, P., Owens, L., & Johnson, B. (2009). Behind the scenes and screens: Insights into the human dimension of covert and cyberbullying. Journal of Psychology, 217(4), 189–196. doi:10.1027/0044-3409.217.4.189.

Sutton, R.M. and Douglas, K.M. (2005). Justice for all, or just for me? More support for self-other differences in just world beliefs. Personality and Individual Differences, 9(3). pp. 637-645. ISSN 0191-8869.

Tajfel, H. (1974). Social identity and intergroup behaviour. Social Science Information, 13(2), 65–93.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–48). Monterey, CA: Brooks-Cole.

Tavris, C., & Aronson, E. (2008). Mistakes were made (but not by me): Why we justify foolish beliefs, bad decisions, and hurtful acts. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

Teger, A. I., & Pruitt, D. G. (1967). Components of group risk taking. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 3, 189–205.

Triandis, H. C. (2008). An autobiography: Why did culture shape my career. R. Levine, A. Rodrigues & L. Zelezny, L. (Eds.). Journeys in social psychology: Looking back to inspire the future . (pp.145-164). New York, NY: Taylor And Francis.

Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism . Boulder, CO: Westview press.

Triandis, H. C. (2001). Individualism-collectivism and personality. Journal of Personality, 69, 907–924.

van Veen, V., Krug, M. K., Schooler, J. W., & Carter, C. S. (2009). Neural activity predicts attitude change in cognitive dissonance. Nature Neuroscience, 12, 1469–1474.

Vandebosch, H., & Van Cleemput, K. (2009). Cyberbullying among youngsters: Profiles of bullies and victims. New media & Society, 11(8), 1349–1371. doi:10.1177/1461444809341263.

Walker, M. B., & Andrade, M. G. (1996). Conformity in the Asch task as a function of age. The Journal of Social Psychology, 136, 367–372.

Walster, E., & Festinger, L. (1962). The effectiveness of “overheard” persuasive communications. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 65, 395–402.

Wason, P. C., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1972). The psychology of deduction: Structure and content. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Weiner, B. (1979). A theory of motivation for some classroom experiences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(1), 3–25.

Wilson, M., & Daly, M. (1985). Competitiveness, risk taking, and violence: The young male syndrome. Ethology and Sociobiology, 6, 59–73.

Wilson, T. D., Lindsey, S., & Schooler, T. Y. (2000). A model of dual attitudes. Psychological Review, 107, 101–126.

Zajonc, R. B. (1965). Social facilitation. Science, 149(3681), 269–274. doi:10.1126/science.149.3681.269

Zimbardo, P. G. (2013). An end to the experiment [Slide show of the Stanford prison experiment]. Retrieved from http://www.prisonexp.org/psychology/37.

CC licensed content, Original

Emotion and Motivation. Authored by : Karenna Malavanti Provided by: PressBooks . License : CC BY-SA-NC: Attribution-ShareALike-NonCommercial

CC licensed content, Shared previously

Introduction to Social Psychology. Authored by : OpenStax College. License : CC BY: Attribution . License Terms : Download for free at https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/1-introduction . Located at : https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/12-introduction .
Why It Matters: Social Psychology. Authored by : Lumen Learning Provided by : Lumen Learning. License : CC BY: Attribution Located at : https://pressbooks.online.ucf.edu/lumenpsychology/chapter/introduction-5/
Introduction to Social Psychology and Self-Presentation. Authored by : Lumen Learning Provided by : Lumen Learning. License : CC BY-SA: Attribution-ShareAlike Located at : https://pressbooks.online.ucf.edu/lumenpsychology/chapter/outcome-social-psychology-and-self-presentation/
Self-presentation. License : CC BY: Attribution . License Terms : Download for free at https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/1-introduction . Located at : https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/12-2-self-presentation .
Image of people holding hands. Authored by : Scott Maxwell. License : CC BY-SA: Attribution-ShareAlike . Located at : https://www.flickr.com/photos/lumaxart/2137735924/ .
Social Psychology and Influences on Behavior. Authored by : Lumen Learning Provided by : Lumen Learning. License : CC BY: Attribution Located at : https://pressbooks.online.ucf.edu/lumenpsychology/chapter/what-is-social-psychology/
What is Social Psychology?. Authored by : OpenStax College. License : CC BY: Attribution . License Terms : Download for free at https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/1-introduction . Located at : https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/12-1-what-is-social-psychology .
Social Norms and Scripts. Authored by : Lumen Learning Provided by : Lumen Learning. License : CC BY-SA: Attribution-ShareAlike Located at : https://pressbooks.online.ucf.edu/lumenpsychology/chapter/self-presentation/
Stanford Prison Experiment concerns. Provided by : Wikipedia. License : CC BY-SA: Attribution-ShareAlike . Located at : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment .
Introduction to Attitudes and Persuasion. Authored by : Lumen Learning Provided by : Lumen Learning. License : CC BY-SA: Attribution-ShareAlike Located at : https://pressbooks.online.ucf.edu/lumenpsychology/chapter/outcome-attitudes-and-persuasion/
Cognitive Dissonance reduction. Provided by : Wikipedia. License : CC BY-SA: Attribution-ShareAlike . Located at : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance .
Attitudes and Persuasion. Authored by : OpenStax College. License : CC BY: Attribution . License Terms : Download for free at https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/1-introduction . Located at : https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/12-3-attitudes-and-persuasion .
Attitude image. Authored by : Nick Youngson. Provided by : The Blue Diamond Gallery. License : CC BY-SA: Attribution-ShareAlike . Located at : http://www.thebluediamondgallery.com/wooden-tile/a/attitude.html .
Attitudes. Authored by : Lumen Learning Provided by : Lumen Learning. License : CC BY: Attribution Located at : https://pressbooks.online.ucf.edu/lumenpsychology/chapter/attitudes-and-persuasion/
Persuasion. Authored by : Lumen Learning Provided by : Lumen Learning. License : CC BY: Attribution Located at : https://pressbooks.online.ucf.edu/lumenpsychology/chapter/persuasion/
Introduction to Group Behavior. Authored by : Lumen Learning Provided by : Lumen Learning. License : CC BY-SA: Attribution-ShareAlike Located at : https://pressbooks.online.ucf.edu/lumenpsychology/chapter/outcome-group-behavior/
Conformity, Compliance, and Obedience. Authored by : OpenStax College. License : CC BY: Attribution . License Terms : Download for free at https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/1-introduction . Located at : https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/12-4-conformity-compliance-and-obedience .
Image of people collaborating. Authored by : Scott Maxwell. Provided by : Flickr. License : CC BY-SA: Attribution-ShareAlike . Located at : https://www.flickr.com/photos/lumaxart/2137737248/in/photostream/ .
Conformity and Obedience. Authored by : Lumen Learning Provided by : Lumen Learning. License : CC BY: Attribution Located at : https://pressbooks.online.ucf.edu/lumenpsychology/chapter/conformity-compliance-and-obedience/
Group Behavior. Authored by : Lumen Learning Provided by : Lumen Learning. License : CC BY: Attribution Located at : https://pressbooks.online.ucf.edu/lumenpsychology/chapter/group-behavior/
The Bystander Effect and Altruism. Authored by : Lumen Learning Provided by : Lumen Learning. License : CC BY-SA-NC: Attribution-ShareAlike-NonCommercial Located at : https://pressbooks.online.ucf.edu/lumenpsychology/chapter/the-bystander-effect-and-altruism/
Helping and Prosocial Behavior. Authored by : Dennis L. Poepsel and David A. Schroeder . Provided by : Truman State University, University of Arkansas. License : CC BY-NC-SA: Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike . Located at : http://nobaproject.com/textbooks/introduction-to-psychology-the-full-noba-collection/modules/helping-and-prosocial-behavior .
Aggression and Prosocial Behavior question and bystander effect section. Authored by : OpenStax College. License : CC BY: Attribution . License Terms : Download for free at https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/1-introduction . Located at : https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/12-7-prosocial-behavior .
Introduction to Prejudice, Discrimination, and Aggression. Authored by : Lumen Learning Provided by : Lumen Learning. License : CC BY: Attribution Located at : https://pressbooks.online.ucf.edu/lumenpsychology/chapter/outcome-prejudice-and-discrimination/
Aggression. Provided by : OpenStax College. License : CC BY: Attribution . License Terms : Download for free at https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/1-introduction . Located at : https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/12-6-aggression .
People on Earth image. Authored by : Scott Maxwell. Provided by : Flickr. License : CC BY-SA: Attribution-ShareAlike . Located at : https://www.flickr.com/photos/lumaxart/2136951861/in/photostream/ .
Prejudice and Discrimination. Authored by : Lumen Learning Provided by : Lumen Learning. License : CC BY: Attribution Located at : https://pressbooks.online.ucf.edu/lumenpsychology/chapter/prejudice-and-discrimination/
Prejudice and Discrimination. Authored by : OpenStax College. License : CC BY: Attribution . License Terms : Download for free at https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/1-introduction . Located at : https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/12-5-prejudice-and-discrimination .
Why do Prejudice and Discrimination Exist?. Authored by : Lumen Learning Provided by : Lumen Learning. License : CC BY: Attribution Located at : https://pressbooks.online.ucf.edu/lumenpsychology/chapter/why-do-prejudice-and-discrimination-exist/
Aggression. Authored by : Lumen Learning Provided by : Lumen Learning. License : CC BY: Attribution Located at : https://pressbooks.online.ucf.edu/lumenpsychology/chapter/aggression/
Aggression. Authored by : OpenStax College. License : CC BY: Attribution . License Terms : Download for free at https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/1-introduction . Located at : https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/12-6-aggression .
Culture. Authored by : Biswas-Diener, R & Thin, N for Noba textbook series: Psychology. License : CC BY-SA-NC: Attribution-ShareAlike-Noncommercial . Located at : http://noba.to/y9xcptqw .
Putting It Together: Social Psychology. Authored by : Lumen Learning Provided by : Lumen Learning. License : CC BY-SA: Attribution-ShareAlike Located at : https://pressbooks.online.ucf.edu/lumenpsychology/chapter/outcome-prosocial-behavior/
How Other People Influence You and Why That is Ok . Authored by : Ilaria Schlitz. Provided by : The Psych Report. License : CC BY-NC-SA: Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike . Located at : http://thepsychreport.com/society/invisible-influence-how-other-people-think-for-you-and-why-thats-ok/ .
3D businessmen marching image. Authored by : lumaxart. License : CC BY-SA: Attribution-ShareAlike . Located at : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Free_3D_Business_Men_Marching_Concept.jpg .

Should you trust your first impression?. Authored by : Peter Mende-Siedlecki. Provided by : TED-Ed. License : Other. License Terms : Standard YouTube License . Located at : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eK0NzsGRceg .
The Asch Experiment. Authored by : Question Everything. License : Other. License Terms : Standard YouTube License . Located at : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qA-gbpt7Ts8 .
abc news Primetime Milgram. Authored by : EightYellowFlowers. License : Other. License Terms : Standard YouTube License . Located at : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwqNP9HRy7Y&list=PLsjOSJm46miabqNKVfh8VrzHtKZym3lQs&index=4 .
Social Influence: Crash Course Psychology #38. Provided by : CrashCourse. License : Other. License Terms : Standard YouTube License . Located at : https://youtu.be/UGxGDdQnC1Y?list=PL8dPuuaLjXtOPRKzVLY0jJY-uHOH9KVU6 .
How Stereotypes Affect Your Test Scores. Provided by : SciShow Psych. License : Other. License Terms : Standard YouTube License . Located at : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oVs3Uxv7SM .
Toppo, Greg (June 2018). Time to Dismiss the Stanford Prison Experiment? Inside Higher Ed . Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/06/20/new-stanford-prison-experiment-revelations-question-findings. ↵

field of psychology that examines how people impact or affect each other, with particular focus on the power of the situation

describes a perspective that behavior and actions are determined by the immediate environment and surroundings; a view promoted by social psychologists

describes a perspective common to personality psychologists, which asserts that our behavior is determined by internal factors, such as personality traits and temperament

internal attribute of a person, such as personality traits or temperament

tendency to overemphasize internal factors as attributions for behavior and underestimate the power of the situation

culture that focuses on individual achievement and autonomy

culture that focuses on communal relationships with others such as family, friends, and community

phenomenon of explaining other people’s behaviors are due to internal factors and our own behaviors are due to situational forces

tendency for individuals to take credit by making dispositional or internal attributions for positive outcomes and situational or external attributions for negative outcomes

explanation for the behavior of other people

socially defined pattern of behavior that is expected of a person in a given setting or group

group’s expectations regarding what is appropriate and acceptable for the thoughts and behavior of its members

person’s knowledge about the sequence of events in a specific setting

Stanford University conducted an experiment in a mock prison that demonstrated the power of social roles, social norms, and scripts

evaluations of or feelings toward a person, idea, or object that are typically positive or negative

psychological discomfort that arises from a conflict in a person’s behaviors, attitudes, or beliefs that runs counter to one’s positive self-perception

process of changing our attitude toward something based on some form of communication

persuasion of one person by another person, encouraging a person to agree to a small favor, or to buy a small item, only to later request a larger favor or purchase of a larger item

person who works for a researcher and is aware of the experiment, but who acts as a participant; used to manipulate social situations as part of the research design

when individuals change their behavior to go along with the group even if they do not agree with the group

conformity to a group norm to fit in, feel good, and be accepted by the group

conformity to a group norm prompted by the belief that the group is competent and has the correct information

change of behavior to please an authority figure or to avoid aversive consequences

group members modify their opinions to match what they believe is the group consensus

strengthening of the original group attitude after discussing views within the group

improved performance when an audience is watching versus when the individual performs the behavior alone

exertion of less effort by a person working in a group because individual performance cannot be evaluated separately from the group, thus causing performance decline on easy tasks

situation in which a witness or bystander does not volunteer to help a victim or person in distress

relying on the actions of others to define an ambiguous need situation and to then erroneously conclude that no help or intervention is necessary

when deciding whether to help a person in need, knowing that there are others who could also provide assistance relieves bystanders of some measure of personal responsibility, reducing the likelihood that bystanders will intervene

a decision-making process that compares the cost of an action or thing against the expected benefit to help determine the best course of action

a motivation for helping that has the improvement of the helper’s own circumstances as its primary goal

a motivation for helping that has the improvement of another’s welfare as its ultimate goal, with no expectation of any benefits for the helper

an altruistic theory proposed by Batson (2011) that claims that people who put themselves in the shoes of a victim and imagining how the victim feel will experience empathic concern that evokes an altruistic motivation for helping.

negative attitudes and feelings toward individuals based solely on their membership in a particular group

specific beliefs or assumptions about individuals based solely on their membership in a group, regardless of their individual characteristics

negative actions toward individuals as a result of their membership in a particular group

prejudice and discrimination toward individuals based solely on their race

prejudice and discrimination toward individuals based on their sex

prejudice and discrimination toward individuals based solely on their age

prejudice and discrimination against individuals based solely on their sexual orientation

treating stereotyped group members according to our biased expectations only to have this treatment influence the individual to act according to our stereotypic expectations, thus confirming our stereotypic beliefs

seeking out information that supports our stereotypes while ignoring information that is inconsistent with our stereotypes

group that we identify with or see ourselves as belonging to

group that we don’t belong to—one that we view as fundamentally different from us

preference for our own group over other groups

act of blaming an out-group when the in-group experiences frustration or is blocked from obtaining a goal

seeking to cause harm or pain to another person

aggression motivated by feelings of anger with intent to cause pain

aggression motivated by achieving a goal and does not necessarily involve intent to cause pain

a person, often an adolescent, being treated negatively repeatedly and over time

repeated behavior that is intended to cause psychological or emotional harm to another person and that takes place online

all of the beliefs, customs, art, and traditions of a particular society

Being guided by different cultural influences in different situations, such as home versus workplace, or formal versus informal roles.

The ability and willingness to apply cultural awareness to practical uses

type of learning that occurs by watching others

Rites or actions performed in a systematic or prescribed way often for an intended purpose. Example: The exchange of wedding rings during a marriage ceremony in many cultures.

Research that is not influenced by the researchers’ own values, morality, or opinions.

The principled objection to passing overly culture-bound (i.e., “ethnocentric”) judgements on aspects of other cultures.

Psychological Science: Understanding Human Behavior Copyright © by Karenna Malavanti is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

--> --> , --> --> '; } else { document.getElementById("sessionDropdown").innerHTML = ' '; } --> --> -->

Search for Courses

Table of Contents (click on a category of interest)

Large Sites on Teaching Psychology

(Association for Psychological Science) (wide range of peer-reviewed resources) (UK site) (browse hundreds of syllabi by area) (online course) (for Introductory Psychology teachers) (APA report on teaching psychology)

(ILT journal) (cross-disciplinary journal) (APA Division 15 journal) (international journal) (intl. research and pedagogy) (free e-journal) (APA Division 2 journal) (ASA journal)

(Society for the Teaching of Psychology) (Society for the Teaching of Psychology) (TIPS) (InterTOP Network)

(STP) (Division 15) (TOPSS) (PT@CC) (NITOP) (NASP) (APA group) (InterTOP Network)

Teaching Tips

(APS ) (University of Hawaii) (essay by David Myers) (U. of California--Berkeley)

(2005, 12th edition) (2005) (2005) (2009) (2008) (2004) (Stanford University) (2005) (2002)

(2005) (2006) (2007) (2008) (2004)

Classroom Materials

Lecture Notes with PowerPoint Slides:

(University of Waterloo, Canada) (Univ. of Arizona) (U. of Waterloo, Canada)

Additional Lecture Notes:

(University of Michigan) (West Virginia University) (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) (extensive list)

Social Psychology:

(University of Washington) (University of Colorado) (U. of Oregon)

Psychology Headlines

From around the world.

People's Moral Values Change with the Seasons, Study Finds
U.K. Reports of Antisemitic Incidents Reach Record High
U.S. Secretaries of State Urge Musk to Block Election Misinformation
Sierra Leone Used to Chain Mental Health Patients; Times Are Changing
Report Details Systemic Racism Within London Police Service
U.S. Schools Taking Meditation Breaks to Help Students Manage Stress
B'tselem's report contains testimony from 55 recently released Palestinian detainees, whose graphic accounts suggest a dramatic worsening of prison conditions since the start of the Gaza war 10 months ago. A U.N. report last week also contained shocking allegations of abuse directed against Palestinian…">Israeli Human Rights Group Alleges Abuse of Palestinian Detainees
Worldwide, Scientists Very Concerned About Climate Change, Survey Finds

Source: Psychology News Center

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 11, 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

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

The 25 Most Influential Psychological Experiments in History

Most Influential Psychological Experiments in History

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

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

1. A Class Divided

Study conducted by: jane elliott.

Study Conducted in 1968 in an Iowa classroom

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

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

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

For more information click here

2. Asch Conformity Study

Study conducted by: dr. solomon asch.

Study Conducted in 1951 at Swarthmore College

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

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

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

3. Bobo Doll Experiment

Study conducted by: dr. alburt bandura.

Study Conducted between 1961-1963 at Stanford University

In his groundbreaking study he separated participants into three groups:

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

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

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

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

4. Car Crash Experiment

Study conducted by: elizabeth loftus and john palmer.

Study Conducted in 1974 at The University of California in Irvine

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

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

5. Cognitive Dissonance Experiment

Study conducted by: leon festinger and james carlsmith.

Study Conducted in 1957 at Stanford University

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

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

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

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

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

6. Fantz’s Looking Chamber

Study conducted by: robert l. fantz.

Study Conducted in 1961 at the University of Illinois

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

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

7. Hawthorne Effect

Study conducted by: henry a. landsberger.

Study Conducted in 1955 at Hawthorne Works in Chicago, Illinois

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

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

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

8. Kitty Genovese Case

Study conducted by: new york police force.

Study Conducted in 1964 in New York City

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

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

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

9. Learned Helplessness Experiment

Study conducted by: martin seligman.

Study Conducted in 1967 at the University of Pennsylvania

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

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

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

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

10. Little Albert Experiment

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

Study Conducted in 1920 at Johns Hopkins University

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

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

11. Magical Number Seven

Study conducted by: george a. miller.

Study Conducted in 1956 at Princeton University

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

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

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

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

12. Pavlov’s Dog Experiment

Study conducted by: ivan pavlov.

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

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

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

This theory came to be known as classical conditioning.

13. Robbers Cave Experiment

Study conducted by: muzafer and carolyn sherif.

Study Conducted in 1954 at the University of Oklahoma

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

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

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

14. Ross’ False Consensus Effect Study

Study conducted by: lee ross.

Study Conducted in 1977 at Stanford University

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

Featured Programs

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

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

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

15. The Schacter and Singer Experiment on Emotion

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

Study Conducted in 1962 at Columbia University

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

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

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

16. Selective Attention / Invisible Gorilla Experiment

Study conducted by: daniel simons and christopher chabris.

Study Conducted in 1999 at Harvard University

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

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

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

17. Stanford Prison Study

Study conducted by philip zimbardo.

Study Conducted in 1971 at Stanford University

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

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

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

18. Stanley Milgram Experiment

Study conducted by stanley milgram.

Study Conducted in 1961 at Stanford University

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

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

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

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

19. Surrogate Mother Experiment

Study conducted by: harry harlow.

Study Conducted from 1957-1963 at the University of Wisconsin

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

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

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

20. The Good Samaritan Experiment

Study conducted by: john darley and daniel batson.

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

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

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

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

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

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

21. The Halo Effect Experiment

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

Study Conducted in 1977 at the University of Michigan

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

be intelligent
be friendly
display good judgment

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

their personal judgments
the production of a more complex social behavior

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

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

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

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

physical appearance

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

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

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

22. The Marshmallow Test

Study conducted by: walter mischel.

Study Conducted in 1972 at Stanford University

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

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

23. The Monster Study

Study conducted by: wendell johnson.

Study Conducted in 1939 at the University of Iowa

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

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

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

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

24. Violinist at the Metro Experiment

Study conducted by: staff at the washington post.

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

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

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

the priorities of people

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

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

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

25. Visual Cliff Experiment

Study conducted by: eleanor gibson and richard walk.

Study Conducted in 1959 at Cornell University

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

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

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

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

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

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

methods of practice

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

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

About Education: Psychology

Explorable.com

Mental Floss.com

About the Author

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

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

Site Information

About Online Psychology Degree Guide

8 Effective Social Psychology Experiments & Activities For High School Students

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

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

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

Social psychology experiments and activities for high school students

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

1. Bystander effect simulation

Group of people surrounding an infured boy

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

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

2. Conformity experiment

Measuring and predicting the length of a rod

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

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

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

3. The marshmallow test

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

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

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

4. Group polarization experiments

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

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

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

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

5. Mirror neurons

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

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

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

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

6. Nonverbal cues and communication

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

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

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

7. Foot-in-the-door experiment

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

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

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

8. Door-in-the-face experiment

Salesperson inviting people to the event

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

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

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

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

Wrapping it up

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

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

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

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

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

12.2 Self-presentation

Learning objectives.

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

Describe social roles and how they influence behavior
Explain what social norms are and how they influence behavior
Define script
Describe the findings and criticisms of Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment

As you’ve learned, social psychology is the study of how people affect one another’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. We have discussed situational perspectives and social psychology’s emphasis on the ways in which a person’s environment, including culture and other social influences, affect behavior. In this section, we examine situational forces that have a strong influence on human behavior including social roles, social norms, and scripts. We discuss how humans use the social environment as a source of information, or cues, on how to behave. Situational influences on our behavior have important consequences, such as whether we will help a stranger in an emergency or how we would behave in an unfamiliar environment.

Social Roles

One major social determinant of human behavior is our social roles. A social role is a pattern of behavior that is expected of a person in a given setting or group (Hare, 2003). Each one of us has several social roles. You may be, at the same time, a student, a parent, an aspiring teacher, a son or daughter, a spouse, and a lifeguard. How do these social roles influence your behavior? Social roles are defined by culturally shared knowledge. That is, nearly everyone in a given culture knows what behavior is expected of a person in a given role. For example, what is the social role for a student? If you look around a college classroom you will likely see students engaging in studious behavior, taking notes, listening to the professor, reading the textbook, and sitting quietly at their desks ( Figure 12.8 ). Of course you may see students deviating from the expected studious behavior such as texting on their phones or using Facebook on their laptops, but in all cases, the students that you observe are attending class—a part of the social role of students.

Social roles, and our related behavior, can vary across different settings. How do you behave when you are engaging in the role of a child attending a family function? Now imagine how you behave when you are engaged in the role of employee at your workplace. It is very likely that your behavior will be different. Perhaps you are more relaxed and outgoing with your family, making jokes and doing silly things. But at your workplace you might speak more professionally, and although you may be friendly, you are also serious and focused on getting the work completed. These are examples of how our social roles influence and often dictate our behavior to the extent that identity and personality can vary with context (that is, in different social groups) (Malloy, Albright, Kenny, Agatstein & Winquist, 1997).

Social Norms

Connect the Concepts

Tweens, teens, and social norms.

My 11-year-old daughter, Janelle, recently told me she needed shorts and shirts for the summer, and that she wanted me to take her to a store at the mall that is popular with preteens and teens to buy them. I have noticed that many girls have clothes from that store, so I tried teasing her. I said, “All the shirts say ‘Aero’ on the front. If you are wearing a shirt like that and you have a substitute teacher, and the other girls are all wearing that type of shirt, won’t the substitute teacher think you are all named ‘Aero’?”

My daughter replied, in typical 11-year-old fashion, “Mom, you are not funny. Can we please go shopping?”

I tried a different tactic. I asked Janelle if having clothing from that particular store will make her popular. She replied, “No, it will not make me popular. It is what the popular kids wear. It will make me feel happier.” How can a label or name brand make someone feel happier? Think back to what you’ve learned about lifespan development . What is it about pre-teens and young teens that make them want to fit in ( Figure 12.9 )? Does this change over time? Think back to your high school experience, or look around your college campus. What is the main name brand clothing you see? What messages do we get from the media about how to fit in?

Because of social roles, people tend to know what behavior is expected of them in specific, familiar settings. A script is a person’s knowledge about the sequence of events expected in a specific setting (Schank & Abelson, 1977). How do you act on the first day of school, when you walk into an elevator, or are at a restaurant? For example, at a restaurant in the United States, if we want the server’s attention, we try to make eye contact. In Brazil, you would make the sound “psst” to get the server’s attention. You can see the cultural differences in scripts. To an American, saying “psst” to a server might seem rude, yet to a Brazilian, trying to make eye contact might not seem an effective strategy. Scripts are important sources of information to guide behavior in given situations. Can you imagine being in an unfamiliar situation and not having a script for how to behave? This could be uncomfortable and confusing. How could you find out about social norms in an unfamiliar culture?

Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment

The famous Stanford prison experiment , conducted by social psychologist Philip Zimbardo and his colleagues at Stanford University, demonstrated the power of social roles, social norms, and scripts. In the summer of 1971, an advertisement was placed in a California newspaper asking for male volunteers to participate in a study about the psychological effects of prison life. More than 70 men volunteered, and these volunteers then underwent psychological testing to eliminate candidates who had underlying psychiatric issues, medical issues, or a history of crime or drug abuse. The pool of volunteers was whittled down to 24 healthy male college students. Each student was paid $15 per day (equivalent to about $80 today) and was randomly assigned to play the role of either a prisoner or a guard in the study. Based on what you have learned about research methods, why is it important that participants were randomly assigned?

A mock prison was constructed in the basement of the psychology building at Stanford. Participants assigned to play the role of prisoners were “arrested” at their homes by Palo Alto police officers, booked at a police station, and subsequently taken to the mock prison. The experiment was scheduled to run for several weeks. To the surprise of the researchers, both the “prisoners” and “guards” assumed their roles with zeal. On the second day of the experiment, the guards forced the prisoners to strip, took their beds, and isolated the ringleaders using solitary confinement. In a relatively short time, the guards came to harass the prisoners in an increasingly sadistic manner, through a complete lack of privacy, lack of basic comforts such as mattresses to sleep on, and through degrading chores and late-night counts.

The prisoners, in turn, began to show signs of severe anxiety and hopelessness—they began tolerating the guards’ abuse. Even the Stanford professor who designed the study and was the head researcher, Philip Zimbardo, found himself acting as if the prison was real and his role, as prison supervisor, was real as well. After only six days, the experiment had to be ended due to the participants’ deteriorating behavior. Zimbardo explained,

At this point it became clear that we had to end the study. We had created an overwhelmingly powerful situation—a situation in which prisoners were withdrawing and behaving in pathological ways, and in which some of the guards were behaving sadistically. Even the “good” guards felt helpless to intervene, and none of the guards quit while the study was in progress. Indeed, it should be noted that no guard ever came late for his shift, called in sick, left early, or demanded extra pay for overtime work. (Zimbardo, 2013)

The Stanford Prison Experiment has been used as a memorable demonstration of the incredible power that social roles, norms, and scripts have in affecting human behavior. However, multiple aspects of the study have been subject to criticism since its inception. The nature of these criticisms range from ethical concerns to issues of generalizability (Bartels, Milovich, & Moussier, 2016; Griggs, 2014; Le Texier, 2019). One criticism is that the way students were recruited for the experiment may have impacted the outcome (Carnahan & McFarland, 2007). Another criticism questions the conclusions that can be drawn from the study. Zimbardo appears to have provided specific guidelines of the types of behaviors that were expected of the guards (Zimbardo, 2007). Subsequent research suggests that such guidelines likely created an expectation of the types of behavior that Zimbardo reported observing in the Stanford Prison Experiment (Bartels, 2019), and that given these expectations, the guards simply acted as they thought they were expected to act. It has also been problematic that attempts to replicate aspects of the study have not been successful. For example, when no guidelines were presented to the guards, researchers documented different outcomes than those observed by Zimbardo. (Reicher & Haslam, 2006).

The Stanford Prison Experiment has some parallels with the abuse of prisoners of war by U.S. Army troops and CIA personnel at the Abu Ghraib prison in 2003 and 2004 during the Iraq War. The offenses at Abu Ghraib were documented by photographs of the abuse, some taken by the abusers themselves ( Figure 12.10 ).

Link to Learning

Listen to this NPR interview with Philip Zimbardo where he discusses the parallels between the Stanford prison experiment and the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq to learn more.

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/1-introduction

Authors: Rose M. Spielman, William J. Jenkins, Marilyn D. Lovett
Publisher/website: OpenStax
Book title: Psychology 2e
Publication date: Apr 22, 2020
Location: Houston, Texas
Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/1-introduction
Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/12-2-self-presentation

© Jun 26, 2024 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

Principles of Social Psychology

(21 reviews)

ISBN 13: 9781946135209

Publisher: University of Minnesota Libraries Publishing

Language: English

Formats Available

Conditions of use.

Learn more about reviews.

Reviewed by JoNell Strough, Professor, West Virginia University on 4/24/22

The text provides adequate coverage of the fundamental topics of an introductory course in social psychology. The topics covered are equivalent to those covered in other textbooks. The text does not, however, include an index or glossary. Key... read more

Comprehensiveness rating: 4 see less

Content Accuracy rating: 2

The content is accurate in that it is supported with citations of research studies. At times, it seemed that there was a bias towards evolutionary explanations for social behavior. This is surprising given that social psychology focuses on proximal causes and the power of the situation rather than more distal causes.

The table that showed the heritability of attitudes lacked any discussion of how heritability coefficients are computed. Heritability coefficients have been critiqued on both methodological and conceptual grounds.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 2

In terms of the fundamental content of a social psyc text, it up to date--the relevant topics are covered . In many cases, so-called "classic studies" that are foundational to the field are featured. The classic study can be used as the base for discussing more recent research. The way that the text is arranged would make it easy to update. However, I did not see citations of research published within the last 10 years--it may be time for an update. In at least one instance, a 2001 meta-analysis was referred to as 'recent.' Whereas different people have different definitions of 'recent,' it is likely that college students will not see a study that was conducted the year they were born as 'recent.' The chapter on persuasion uses the Obama 2008 campaign as an opening example. More recent elections could be used.

The text could be brought up to date by incorporating examples from contemporary culture to apply course concepts (e.g., political party differences in the acceptance of masking and COVID-19 vaccines; the "Me too Movement' and the "Black Lives Matter Movement" and climate change). Social psychology can be applied to these examples to help students think more critically about their social world. In particular, the discussion of the commons dilemma could be significantly enhanced by greater attention to global climate change. The text makes a passing reference to climate change, but this is a central issue for Generation Z.

In terms of appearing out of date, the text adheres to the gender binary (discussing gender differences--or differences between men and women). Many millennials and members of Gen Z are attuned to viewing gender in a nonbinary fashion. While research on gender diverse persons may lag, these issues are still important to acknowledge.

Clarity rating: 4

The reading level of the text is appropriate for an undergraduate audience. Key terms are adequately defined.

Consistency rating: 4

The text is consistent. Each chapter has a similar structure which facilitates readability due to knowing what to expect in terms of chapter organization.

Modularity rating: 5

The text is easy to read. It is organized into subsections (even within chapters) that have their own reference section. This would make it easy to reorganize the material.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 5

The text follows the standard organization of introductory level social psychology courses.

Interface rating: 4

The images and figures are clear and easy to navigate. Hyperlinks within the text to videos are a nice touch (although the link to the video on emotions did not work). The inclusion of 'learning objectives' and 'key takeaways' as well as the sections that encourage readers to 'think like a social psychologist' are features of the interface that encourage the reader to actively engage with the text, not just absorb it passively. The inclusion of basic power point slides for each chapter is a benefit for instructors who may be teaching the course for the first time by providing them a foundation upon which to build and add their own content and examples.

Grammatical Errors rating: 5

I did not notice any grammatical errors.

Cultural Relevance rating: 3

See comments above about the gender binary when discussing gender differences

Generally speaking, I think the text is adequate--it would provide a foundation in the basic content relevant to an introductory course in social psychology. However, I do think the text could be improved by an update that includes references to more recent research and carefully considers the likely audience for the text (college students) and uses contemporary issues to engage them.

Reviewed by Ariel Ladum, Part-time faculty, Portland Community College on 12/23/21

The book covers all the basic concepts that are appropriate for a lower-level psychology course focused on social psychology. read more

Comprehensiveness rating: 5 see less

The book covers all the basic concepts that are appropriate for a lower-level psychology course focused on social psychology.

Content Accuracy rating: 4

The book includes accurate information, but if I were using this book I would need to supplement the book to include more cultural influences as well as recent social changes related to gender identity.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 4

This book has some more recent research but appears to focus on more seminal research in the field (as is typical of that introductory-level psychology textbooks), and easily could be supplemented.

Clarity rating: 5

Yes! This book is very reader friendly!

Consistency rating: 5

Yes, the book maintains internal consistency in terms of using the same terms for concepts throughout.

Yes! This book is great for identifying pertinent topics and information based on its modules within chapters.

This book follow a layout that is typical of how introductory textbooks in social psychology present topics moving from the individual to the group.

Interface rating: 5

Text and images are easy to read.

The text is clearly, and 'cleanly,' written.

Cultural Relevance rating: 2

I did not see a cultural perspective emphasized, and this would need to be supplemented by the instructor.

Reviewed by Michelle Wright, Adjunct Professor, Eastern Oregon University on 6/14/21

Overall, I believe the book covers all areas and ideas about social psychology adequately. It does so in chunks of topics relates to the main topic of the chapter. This breakdown is essentially for describing the areas and ideas well. This format also gets the "main idea" of the section clear to students so there is no question about what materials are being covered. One area that I believe the book could improve on is discussing culture and diversity in relation to the topics being covered. For example, there is not much discussion of how culture might impact attributions in the attribution theory section of the textbook. It is important for students to understand how the topics in social psychology are embedded within a cultural context. I also believe that the section on reducing prejudice should be revamped to be more current. There are more details needed about programs implemented that help to reduce prejudice and more broadly what we can do as a society (specifically at the individual level) can do to reduce prejudice and to promote a world with justice, equity, inclusion, and dignity of all people.

Overall, the book is accurate and error-free. I also believe, at least overall, that it is unbiased. I did not feel that one topic was discussed in more detail than another, even though the other topic needed just as much discussion. There was a lot of balance in terms of discussion given to each of the topics. Research supporting statements and other information covered in the book were also provided. I did not perceive any gaps where information was provided but no sources were provided. Even controversies within social psychology included various sources. The textbook also has a section after chapters on "Exercises and Critical Thinking". I thought these might be a bit biased but they were not and allowed students to address/confront their own limitations in their thoughts, attitudes, and behaviors. This is a challenge often with social psychology - there are students with various perspectives and world experiences and sometimes textbooks in social psychology can come off as "preachy", according to students' perspectives.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 3

The book, for the most part, contains up-to-date information. It is a bit on the dated side in terms of when it was published. There is new research daily that might be important for the textbook. For example, more up-to-date information about programs to reduce prejudice as well as the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on social psychology principles. It seems as if the textbook has not been updated recently and I'm uncertain how it might be updated in the future. This is unfortunate because social psychology is a dynamic field, and information and research changes very frequently. Students might come away from the textbook with out-of-date information. There are definitely updates needed to the textbook to keep it relevant to current times.

The book is very clear on all the topics it describes. If jargon or technical terminology is used, the authors do a good job of explaining and defining these terms and concepts. Another aspect of the book that is great is the amount of examples offered. If a topic is covered, like on the authority in cults, the textbook provides an example of a cult that has been studied by social psychology. The textbook also presents case studies to highlight specific topics as well. Students do well with case studies and are better able to apply the content of the case to the content of the textbook. Overall, the book presents a balanced context for understanding the concepts without being overly technical and confusing to students. It "holds students' hands" when describing complex concepts.

I did not find anything in the textbook that is inconsistent. Terminologies used are consistent throughout the textbook, and any alternative terminologies that might be used in the social psychology literature are also provided.

The modularity is the best portion of the textbook. It is divisible into smaller reading sections as specific topics. There is not an enormous amount of text without any context or labeling. If there is a lot of text to be covered, there are often even subsections within that text. It is also possible to get into any section within the textbook without previous context. The frequent labeling makes this possible. This is good for students who might be reading sections at a time and might have a time delay between reading various sections. The frequent labeling also helps make it easier for students to find concepts they might have forgotten or might be in learning materials. Sometimes text can get overly wordy and it makes it tough for students to find information that they might need for a test or assignment.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 4

Overall, I think the chapter organization is clear, along with the subsections within the topics in the text as well. There are only two topics that I think should be covered close to each other. It is the "Self" and "Perceiving Others" sections. They are separate by another chapter. Most textbooks and how I would prefer to teach these chapters is close to each other; for me, understanding the self informs our understanding of others. However, it might not be too much of a big deal that they are separated by one chapter.

I used an older computer to navigate the textbook. I did not find any issues with interface; there were no navigation problems, issues with images/chats, or with videos. The only thing that might be somewhat confusing is how the videos are displayed. At first, it looks like the video did not load but if one reads it is clear that one might click on the link to view the videos. It might be a bit more helpful to have the videos embedded within the context so that readers see the video link.

I did not identify any grammatical errors. I also did not find any sentence structure errors either.

I commented on this prior, but I will elaborate more here. Social psychology is embedded within society and so culture and diversity of important. I feel like that textbook could use some revision that highlights these differences. There are examples provided about races and ethnicities, but more is needed, especially in the reducing prejudice section and on attribution theory (and aggression and other topics as well). Another concern that I have is that races and ethnicities are mentioned, as well as gender, but other diversity-related matters are not (i.e., ableism).

Overall, I do recommend this textbook. I do think it needs to be updated, though, as the publication date is around 2010 with the original content. Faculty might need to provide other materials to supplement the 11 year old literature.

Reviewed by Lisa Hollis-Sawyer, Associate Professor, Gerontology Program Coordinator, Northeastern Illinois University on 4/19/21

The Principles of Social Psychology textbook provides comprehensive coverage of the principles and theories related to the study of social psychology. The 13 book chapters cover the following topics: Introducing Social Psychology (Chapter 1), Social Learning and Social Cognition (Chapter 2), Social Affect (Chapter 3), The Self (Chapter 4), Attitudes, Behavior, and Persuasion (Chapter 5); Perceiving Others (Chapter 6), Influencing and Conforming (Chapter 7), Liking and Loving (Chapter 8), Helping and Altruism (Chapter 9), Aggression (Chapter 10), Working Groups: Performance and Decision Making (Chapter 11), Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination (Chapter 12); and Competition and Cooperation in Our Social Worlds (Chapter 13). These topics reflect standard topics covered in a typical social psychology class.

Content Accuracy rating: 5

The textbook does a good job of presenting complex topics accurately and in understandable terms with helpful illustrations. The coverage of research and associated illustrative examples in each chapter is both appropriate and topic relevant. For example, in section 1.3 “Conducting Research in Social Psychology” of the textbook, it is important to present and give examples of how to “operationally define” social behaviors when conducting research in social psychology because this is a step that new researchers have to learn. Some chapters contain research that would benefit from updated citations (e.g., last five years of research).

The content presented in each chapter is relevant to what would be covered in a typical social psychology course. Further, the design of the chapters creates an effective “scaffolding” of topic-relevant knowledge building within and across chapters. For example, in Chapter 11's “Working Groups: Performance and Decision Making,” concepts about internal factors and processes related to cognitive processes logically transition to more expanded and external processes and outcomes (e.g., the manifestation of groupthink as an observable social behavior).

The design of the textbook's chapters is clear in terms of its content and learning objectives for the students. The text is presented in accessible and comprehensible language. Further, the author offers a clear context for introduced terminology and concepts to support clarity and understanding. At the beginning of sections within a chapter, learning objectives are offered to help the student focus on achieving the learning goals. The textbook does a good job of helping the student learner apply learned content by offering chapter elements of “Research Focus.” “Key Takeaways'' and “Exercises and Critical Thinking” boxes in chapters’ sections. References are provided for students to look up the research presented in each section. Finally, the author offers a helpful chapter summary at the end of each chapter. Although presenting rather complex topics related to social psychology, the author conveys the theories and concepts clearly and understandably. For example, in Chapter 10, the complex and critical factors underlying human aggression starts with a real-world incident and then covers a variety of topics ranging from the “internal” influence of hormones to “external” environmental factors of social reinforcement and role modeling (e.g., Bandura’s social cognitive theory) are explained clearly with supporting examples and images.

An important characteristic of this book is that it offers a consistently structured reading experience for students to provide learning objectives through applied activities to reinforce reading concepts further. Further, the textbook presents relevant and supportive images and illustrations to supplement written content across the chapters. It might be helpful to start each chapter with an overview of learning objectives for the entire chapter and have a summative applied activity (e.g., discussion questions or an online activity) after the chapter summary. A major strength is that the textbook is written in tone and terminology that is consistent and appropriate for an undergraduate student audience. The chapters contain content that is consistently and logically presented to build knowledge, integrating the previously-mentioned support of learning objectives and applied to learning activities.

The book's sections are independent units that can be easily assigned as separate reading assignments in a course. This textbook design offers great flexibility for instructors in their course design and textbook utilization.

The book is well-organized, logical in its sequencing of chapters and section topics within the chapters, well-written in both content and tone, and presents relevant information for studying social psychology. It is helpful that the author provides a list of references for each chapter section.

There are no apparent interface issues with the textbook.

There are no apparent grammatical issues with the textbook.

Cultural Relevance rating: 4

The textbook has no indications of cultural insensitivity or offensiveness in content. It would be great if there were more examples incorporating inclusivity of different races, ethnicities, and backgrounds.

It is great that each chapter starts with a real-world example that focuses on the topics to be covered (e.g., having the opening textbox of “How the Obama Campaign Effectively Used Persuasion to Defeat John McCain” in Chapter 5, which focuses on attitudes, behavior, and persuasion. The only caution is that these social media examples can become outdated over time. Although the textbook does a great job in covering content for teaching a course in social psychology, it would be helpful if it offered available links to review the test item bank and PowerPoint slides. On p. 597, there are “prompts” for linkages, but the actual links are not there.

Reviewed by Josh Pranger, Instructor, Trine University on 3/3/21

This text provides a comprehensive overview into the field of social psychology. It introduced each area I was hoping to cover in my course. read more

This text provides a comprehensive overview into the field of social psychology. It introduced each area I was hoping to cover in my course.

I've not discovered any errors in the text.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 5

The text is slightly older than what I was looking for with a 2015 republishing date. Despite this, I did not find this to be a limitation.

The text is clear and easy to read. Each section is broken up well.

The presentation of the text remains consistent and easy to follow throughout.

The modularity of the text was consistent with what I would expect to find in most standard textbooks.

The chapters flow in a logical manner. When developing my course, I assigned the chapters sequentially in the same fashion as the authors.

There were no issues or concerns found with the interface of the text.

The text was free of grammatical errors.

Cultural Relevance rating: 5

The text is culturally sensitive and provides examples from multiple backgrounds and perspectives.

Reviewed by Olivia Aspiras, Assistant Professor, Clarke University on 1/6/21

The textbook covers a broad range of topics and addresses the core components of social psychology. There's no index or glossary but I don't see this as a big problem because terms can be searched in electronic textbooks. read more

Overall, the content is accurate. There were some issues discussed that I think could be improved by including more research from multiple perspectives, such as the section on media and aggression.

Much of the research discussed are from older studies. Many times using older, classic studies is fine, but I do think the book would benefit from adding in more recent research. Also, many of the real-world examples are old. I think the book could be easily updated by replacing the real-world examples and the "Research Focus" sections with more recent content.

The textbook is well-written. It's breaks down key terms and concepts in a way that I think students will be able to more easily understand than some other textbooks I've used. The author frequently uses tables and images to demonstrate concepts, which was helpful.

The approach to social psychology is consistent throughout the book. At the start of the book, the author discusses affect, behavior, and cognition (ABCs) and then ties this into each chapter. It's also helpful that the author clearly defines key terms in each chapter, even if they've been defined in a previous chapter, so that instructors could pick and chose chapters from this book without it impacting student learning.

The author breaks each chapter up into several subsections, and uses multiple subheadings within those. Instructors could easily reorganize content to fit with the structure of their course.

The order of the chapters and the content within each chapter are presented in a logical fashion.

Overall, the interface is fine. However, some of the videos weren't great quality.

There were just a few errors in the book.

The textbook does touch on culture more than some of the other social psychology textbooks I've read. However, I think that greater representation of different races and backgrounds in the photos would be useful. Additionally, changing "he or she" to "they" to match the new APA recommendations and be more inclusive would be a simple way to improve the book.

Reviewed by Nicole Civettini, Professor of Sociology, Winona State University on 12/28/20

For a psychology textbook, I would rate comprehensiveness at a 5. However, as a sociological social psychology or interdisciplinary text, the book disappoints. Discussion of symbolic interactionism is a glaring oversight; there is not even a nod to Cooley or Mead in the chapter on the self. To be fair, I would almost certainly be unsatisfied with any social psychology text that isn't interdisciplinary; however, most are looking for a psychology text, and this fits that bill quite well.

It is, of course, nowhere near as comprehensive within each chapter as a 400-page textbook would be, but it does a nice job of hitting key points, summarizing key studies, and providing images when instructive. I would consider this text to be at a 100- or 200-level, not well suited to an upper-division course, which would need to get deeper into each subtopic and discuss a wider range of relevant research in more detail.

I found the information presented to be accurate as of 2010; I did not find any terms that were misused or other such errors. The lack of detail in a shorter text like this can sometimes result in factually correct but misleading information. With a rather cursory discussion, the space is lacking to bring intersectionality into the picture, and while a claim may be true for a gender sample of the population, a particular finding may be null or even reversed for some sub-populations. The text misses these, but if brevity is a virtue, it is an unavoidable foible.

Disappointingly, the newest citation I could find was 2011 and the vast majority of the material summarized as pre-2005. Especially on such topics as gender identity, discrimination, and group behavior, I really think students need to be given access to the latest work, or at least work within the last several years. A decade is simply too long to let a textbook go stale.

First-year students should have no difficulty accessing this information. I would even be assigning the sections that get more biological (physiology of the nervous system, neuroscience of emotions, etc...) in my sociology courses without any expectation of prior knowledge.

The text uses the standard psychological lexicon. Some of the terms are outside of the sociological realm and would require a bit of additional explanation, but psychology students should find them familiar.

Modularity rating: 4

10I really like the organization of the chapters, though I do which it were divided into three or four larger sections, with the chapters as sub-sections. It helps students better identify the flow of the course (which, in this text, seems to approximate a micro-to-macro development).

Chapters are well-organized and visually easy to follow. There are introductions to each chapter, graphics and text boxes similar to a standard textbook, and chapter summaries. I particularly like the "think like a social psychologist" section in each chapter, which shows students how to apply what they've learned.

Interface rating: 3

The textbook is more visually appealing than I expected from an OER, but less so than a standard text. One thing that made navigation more challenging is that, when you click on the title of a chapter, it shows you only the introduction/overview and does not automatically drop down the various sections of the chapter. I can easily see a couple handfuls of students going into the first quiz or two having just read the introduction, not realizing that they've missed 90% of the information.

It would also be nice if, at the end of a section, there were a "Next section" button that you could click to continue, rather than going back up to the table of context, clicking on the chapter drop down menu, and then clicking on the next section.

The writing was grammatically sound.

The text is sorely lacking in the inclusion of transgender and non-binary people and relevant issues. I realize that most research compares men to women or discusses results with respect to men and women, but it is important to communicate to students that, in these instances, "we don't yet have substantial data on how a given theory would apply to non-binary people," or "we don't have sufficient research on how this process operates for transgender individuals." Of course, an effort must be made to include research on LGBTQIA+ people whenever possible, which had not been done here. Part of this is attributable to the textbook being a decade out of date, but even discussion of LGB people and issues is sporadic. As with most psychology texts, there is a clear bias toward a white, middle-class, able-bodies, heterosexual, Western set of mores and values. This may yet be an inescapable phenomenon for textbooks available in English, but this one really shows its age here. Unfortunately, I will not be using it purely on this basis.

Reviewed by Anna Behler, Assistant Teaching Professor, North Carolina State University on 5/8/20

The textbook is comprehensive and includes almost all of the topics that I would consider crucial for an undergraduate social psychology course. (See comments on relevance for further detail on additional helpful inclusions.) read more

The information presented is accurate and up to date. Research is presented in a way that is unbiased and not misleading.

The book contains many relevant examples, though an updated version would be beneficial. Additionally, there is no mention of the replication crisis and changes in regards to how the field views research and open scientific practices, which is a highly relevant topic, especially within the field of social psychology. This may be my own bias, but it would be helpful if these topics were included in future versions.

The book is written at a level that is accessible, appropriate, and engaging for college undergraduates.

The text is consistent in its presentation from chapter to chapter. Each chapter follows a similar format and structure, making the book feel highly organized and easy to follow.

The textbook is organized using a similar topic structure as most other texts. However, it is also easily subdivided into smaller sections as a result of the way the authors have laid it out. This is especially helpful when planning to break down larger sections into individual topics/class periods.

The organization of the chapters works well and meets the goal set by the author of moving from the individual level to social and group/cultural levels. There are some topics that I might consider teaching a bit later in the semester once students have covered the basics (e.g., social learning), but overall the organization makes sense and flows well.

The text was laid out nicely, and there were no apparent issues navigating through the text or viewing any of the images. However, some of the video links do not work properly unless copied and pasted directly into a browser.

The book is well written and contains few, if any, grammatical/typographical errors.

The text is not culturally insensitive or offensive in any way, though it would benefit from a few more examples that spoke to a wider cultural/demographic base of students.

This textbook is comprehensive and well designed for use in an introductory social psychology course. The text is strong enough for use on its own, or to be used alongside supplemental journal articles and other outside sources. The writing and organization of the text make for an engaging and accessible read for college students, and I strongly recommend it.

Reviewed by Alishia Huntoon, Professor, Oregon Institute of Technology on 4/12/20

This is a comprehensive textbook that that covers the primary topics that would be expected for an undergraduate social psychology course. read more

This is a comprehensive textbook that that covers the primary topics that would be expected for an undergraduate social psychology course.

The information covered in this textbook has been accurate and I don't have to worry that my students are reading about any topics or studies that are misleading.

The content is contemporary and contains the classic studies, along with examples that today's students can understand.

It is written at a level that is accessible to a range of students, so I don’t have to worry that it is too difficult or confusing. I had a student review it with me and she found it engaging and clearly written.

The chapters were similarly organized and maintained the same style of writing. The textbook had a good flow from one chapter to the next and did not feel disjointed.

The textbook is set up with typical chapters that you would find in an undergraduate social psychology textbook. Should an instructor want to, they could further break down the chapters into smaller chunks.

Everything was clearly laid out and easy to follow. The topics were presented in appropriate chapters and it was easy to search for the chapters, as well as within the chapters. The search tool was a nice option.

I didn't note any interface issues. Everything was laid out nicely.

The book was cleanly written. It was not full of distracting grammatical errors or misleading grammatical mistakes.

I did not note any offensive examples or language.

I was happy to find this as a comprehensive open social psychology textbook that I could use for my classes. It is written at a level that is accessible to a range of students, so I don’t have to worry that it is too difficult or confusing. I had a student review it with me and she found it engaging and clearly written. It covers all of the major topics. It may not be the best fit for a higher level social psychology class, but could be supplemented with additional materials, such as journal articles. One concern that I have, since I also want to be considerate of others that may need to teach the course, such as adjuncts, is the availability of support materials. There are open access slide decks and test banks that go along with each chapter of the textbook, available here https://psychologyexploration.weebly.com/principles-of-social-psychology-oer-ancillaries.html

Reviewed by Michelle Shelton, Assistant Professor , George Fox University on 5/8/19

This book clearly provides the key components and concepts that many social psychology textbooks cover. In comparing this book with other social psychology textbooks, it is just as comprehensive as most other textbooks. read more

This book appears to be accurate, and current within the field of social psychology. I did not see any glaring errors, or any significant bias.

While this book is very straightforward and engaging with the subject matter, several of the references used are very outdated. In understanding the theory behind the concepts, or a historically perspective of the concepts, material that is less current is applicable, but not when discussing current theories and perspectives. A more current edition would be helpful in the next couple of years.

The book's clarity is strong and well-designed. It is very reader-friendly and easy to navigate. The structure of each section lends itself to a good dialogue of the material. The opening story of each chapter is an excellent way to engage students in the material in a very practical sense.

This book is very consistent in the presentation of terms, concepts, theories, frameworks for understanding, etc. It follows a nice pattern that is duplicated throughout each chapter for ease of read, and for instructors to best utilize this book in their courses.

I enjoyed the chapters being broken down into different, distinct sections. While I assigned the entire chapter as reading, I planned my activities and assignments to include a graded item from each of the sections. By doing this I knew students were engaged in each of the sections, and for my planning as a professor, it worked very well. The addition of videos, and a substantive explanation of these videos, was also very helpful. I also appreciated the, "Thinking Like a Social Psychologist" sections in each chapter.

As previously mentioned, this book is engaging, easy to use and understand, and is very organized.

It does not appear that there are glaring issues with the interface except for two areas that are fairly consistent complaints from my students who interact with the open resources. First, depending on how the book is downloaded there may or may not be page numbers to list for in-text citations in their papers. Second, as with most open resources textbooks the author's name(s) are removed which makes citing the book difficult for some. A suggestion would be to have APA, MLA, etc., citations available for students.

I did not notice any grammar errors.

There were several intersections with culture and social psychology concepts. They were done well, and thoughtfully.

Overall, this is a great book. I have used it once in a Social and Ethical Psychology course, and will use it again.

Reviewed by Rhiannon Traigle, Instructor, Nicholls State University on 4/29/19

Compared to the text I am currently using, I felt this text was very comprehensive. It covered what I consider the major content areas of the subject. Since it is in line with current texts used for social psychology, I feel it would be easily adaptable to the course I am currently teaching. I believe it is exactly the right amount of information as well as the pertinent information for an introductory course.

In my opinion, the information presented was accurate and up to date. The information was supported by current research and was unbiased.

As stated in my feedback on comprehensiveness, I feel the information presented is relevant and covers the key or important concepts. I think it is great foundation to introducing social psychology. I love the Exercises for Critical Thinking. I enjoyed that the text provides opportunities for application to practice. It covered historical perspectives up to current content based on recent research.

The information was presented in a straightforward, clear, and concise manner. It was easy to following and flowed well from one chapter to the next. Terminology was consistent, appropriate for the content, and technical.

The text provided a consistent writing style and consistent theme. The layout throughout the text did not vary.

The divided subsections in each chapter were well organized and divided in a way that provided logical starting and stopping points in teaching content. It also allowed for the inclusion or exclusion of concepts without seeming like information was missing or would alter the flow of teaching the material.

I really enjoyed the break-up of sections included throughout the text including Learning Objectives, Thinking Like a Social Psychologist, Social Psychology in the Public, Key Takeaways, and Exercises in Critical Thinking. All of the information was presented in a logical, clear manner that began with basic information and graduated to application.

I did not encounter any interface issues. I had more difficulty navigating the text, but it is more likely user error since I am new to using online texts.

I did not notice any major grammatical errors. I did see minor errors including one instance where I noticed there was a lack of spacing between two separate words.

I felt the text was culturally considerate and inclusive. Cultural considerations were used throughout the text. I did not feel that any of the information was presented in offensive or insensitive manner.

Reviewed by Omesh Johar, Assistant Professor, Central State University on 4/8/19

I really like the selection of topics covered. read more

I really like the selection of topics covered.

As far as I know, the text is an accurate representation of the field of social psychology.

It is 2019, and the text still remains relevant. I do hope that a revised edition will be released in the next couple of years.

In general, the textbook is easy to read. However, students who are not very well prepared for college-level reading may find it slightly challenging.

In my reading of the text, I have not found inconsistencies in terminology.

Some sections seem to be very lengthy. Publishers might want to re-visit sub-sections.

When I teach the class, I like to use my own sequence of chapters. As a starting point, I prefer to distribute chapters into two categories. The first category focusses on the level of the individual (Chapters 2-3, 5, 8-10 fall neatly under modules called cognition, affect, and behavior; Chapter 4 helps to bring it all together under the umbrella of the self). The second category focusses on the social level with chapters 6, 7, and 11-13.

On rare occasions, students have had difficulties while using the book on their smartphones.

Grammatical Errors rating: 4

I spotted minor errors here and there.

The text is culturally sensitive. That said, I'd like to see a bigger focus on processes relevant to different racial groups and countries around the globe. For instance, the development of a sense of being black or African American could be woven into Chapter 4. Chapter 8 could cover integrate arranged marriages into discussions about love and commitment in relationships.

I teach at a historically black institution. Most of my students are first-generation college students from not very well-to-do backgrounds. I am really glad that a great, free textbook as yours is available to my students. Overall, I really like the book. Thanks a lot for doing such a wonderful job.

Reviewed by Nina Dulabaum, Professor, Morton College on 12/30/18

This textbook is a comprehensive Open Educational Resource for introductory social psychology courses covering most major areas and significant research. As noted by others, there is no glossary or index but the entire textbook is a searchable PDF file. Professors and students can use smart phones, tablets, laptops, iPads, and computers to access this textbook. It can be uploaded to any learning management system and even emailed to individuals – at the best price possible for students, who may be struggling with the costs of higher education.

As noted above, the author has addressed most major areas and significant research in social psychology.

Please refer to the end comment.

The text is written in a straightforward style.

This text is internally consistent.

This text is divided into smaller sections with learning objectives and exercises for critical thinking. It also challenges students, specifically at the end of Chapters 2 - 13, to apply what they have learned to their own lives.

This textbook has a clear structure: each section has distinct learning objectives and key takeaways as well as questions at the end of each section to promote critical thinking. As noted above, “Thinking like a Social Psychologist” is also a valuable feature at the end of Chapters 2 – 13. These components will be very helpful for students and also professors, who are adopting an OER textbook without the usual ancillary materials and supplemental educational technology often available through publishing companies.

The few video links in the text are broken; this may be something easily fixed.

The text is well written.

The text includes social psychological research from around the world.

I would highly encourage adding a chapter on sustainability. This is a critical interdisciplinary area in psychology today: leveraging psychological research and principles to understand human behavior and to motivate and empower individuals to seek innovative solutions for sustainability. The survival of our global community depends on worldwide action.

I have adopted this textbook for my social psychology classes; I will add a few texts and videos on sustainability to complete the course.

Reviewed by Dylan Selterman, Lecturer, University of Maryland, College Park on 2/1/18

This is a very comprehensive textbook that includes not only the essential topics in social psychology (attitudes, persuasion, prosocial behavior, prejudice), but a good overview of the history of social psychology and various theoretical perspectives. There are even sections toward the end regarding how social psych research can be applied to understand morality and improve cooperation. The only topic lacking that I normally teach in this course is political psychology (i.e. the psychology of liberalism and conservatism).

The content is accurate and unbiased. Stangor does a fine job in presenting research based evidence without an agenda, which is more than can be said for other textbook authors in this field. Of course, some may question the robustness of certain research findings (e.g., Bargh et al., 1996) given recent replication attempts, but Stangor presents the research in a highly accurate way.

This is an issue that plagues all textbooks. None are good enough (IMHO) to have strong longevity, unless they are in a Wikipedia format with editable entries. Stangor's book is like the norm--it's up to date but as new findings emerge, there will need to be some revisions. Most of the historical stuff (e.g., the Milgram studies) won't change.

The book is very clear and free of technical jargon. There is no doubt that intelligent undergraduates will be able to follow the material presented here.

There is a high level of consistency. At the beginning, Stangor frames the discussion of social psych principles in terms of the ABCs -- affect, behavior, and cognition. Then he revisits this theme throughout the text, making terms consistent and within this general framework.

Modularity is good here. There are plenty of logical sub-sections in each unit (five per chapter).

The topics are clear. Typically in a social psych course, the basics are presented first regarding social perception, context, the self/situation, etc. and then progress to more applied, specific topics such as aggression/altruism, relationships, groups, etc. This textbook follows that basic organization.

There are no interface issues.

Grammar is fine as far as I can tell.

There is a good discussion of culture throughout the book, with specific attention to how norms and trends are different across the world. There are no cultural insensitivities, nor anything offensive.

If you're thinking about adopting an open-access textbook, rest assured this book is a worthy substitute for any traditional textbook in terms of quality and comprehensiveness. Strongly recommended.

Reviewed by Deborah Deemer, Associate Professor, University of Northern Iowa on 2/15/17

Comprehensiveness rating: 2 see less

Social psychology is a vast interdisciplinary enterprise making any attempt to provide a comprehensive overview of the research a daunting task. The author wisely identifies and takes on a small slice of the field, the interactionist perspective. The text is an interesting read, made coherent through the repetitive frame of self/other concern. For the advanced scholar the text serves the author’s desire for engaged and critical thinking when imagining alternative arguments and pieces of research to include. However, as an introduction to the subject, I found the text lacking in both depth and breadth. A claim to present a view of the discipline as seen through the eyes of a European Experimental Social Psychologist would better set the reader’s expectations. Read alongside companion texts, for example the Symbolic Interactionist Approach presented by Kent Sandstrom and his colleagues in Symbols, Selves, and Social Reality could spark critical thinking about embedded psychological versus sociological assumptions. Alternatively students might critique the view presented in this text, it’s comparative advantages and disadvantages, after a read of Social Psychology and Everyday Life by Darrin Hodgetts and his colleagues in Australia. Obviously it is easier to read and critique a text than to write one! The author(s) have provided a wonderful service by creating this text as a start to a fuller conversation. If read as a Wikipedia project the text succeeds in providing a rich and coherent spine on to which many authors could connect and expand upon presented themes. For example the important work of G. Maruyama could be tucked into the discussion of minority influence. Addressing small-group interaction in cooperative and competitive contexts allows for the inclusion of Elizabeth Cohen, Stuart Cook, Robert Slavin, Dean Tjosvold, etc. To facilitate the collaborative writing some stand-alone application chapters would allow more depth around issues of particular interest to the reader. The inclusion of both an author and subject index at the end of each chapter would greatly facilitate locating and building on existing themes and references.

No errors other than omission were noted.

This social cognitive approach to social psychology is of relevance both as an historic touchstone and a path to current work in neuroscience. As noted above the interrelated themes provided in the text’s narrative could provide a basis for elaborative writing for years to come.

The author’s style of writing makes principles of social psychology and related concepts easily accessible.

The layout of the text and conceptual framework introduced in the preface and first chapter provide a repetitive form in the provision of content that is utilized in a consistent manner. A professional in graphic design could help the author make better use of typographic conventions. Most problematic are the links. They possess quotation marks (a very odd practice) and are highlighted in “Minnesota Red,” (the same color used to highlight vocabulary terms). While the links take one to a given chart or figure, clicking vocabulary terms does nothing. Photos are linked to flicker pages but no new information is provided. In short, three separate actions are associated with one color, providing frustration for the user. Captions would be more accessible if line spacing was a bit tighter, and caption text set flush left.

The initial table of contents provides an easy reference for dividing the text. The consistent conceptual layout provides coherence even if chapters were to be shuffled.

The consistent layout, with easily identified learning objectives and introductory paragraph, text body, thinking like a social psychologist and social psychology in the public interest sections, chapter summary, key takeaways, exercises and critical thinking, and chapter references flow smoothly.

Previous reviewers have addressed this topic in some detail. I would add, while red may be the publishers branding, it is a poor choice for individuals who have issues in perceiving color. Blue rarely is such a problem and seems more appropriate for hyperlinks.

No errors in grammar were noted

For a text in social psychology, the lack of sophistication regarding intersectionality is troubling. Within the social cognitive perspective chosen for review, Carolyn Sherif’s depiction of the social situation provides an historic introduction to the idea that each setting is infused with cultural meanings. While national and ethnic identities are important topics there is much more to be said about the meaning of culture.

Given the author’s affiliation with APA, I was surprised when a search for Carolyn Sherif came up empty. Her dismay over social psychology’s drift into marketing polls, paying too little attention to realistic intergroup relations, seems relevant when reflecting on current journalism and our news media. Her discussion of ethics in research, regarding the too often perceived need to deceive, would also benefit a future generation of social psychologists.

Reviewed by Meara Habashi , Lecturer, University of Iowa on 1/7/16

I do believe that this text covers all the major areas of social psychology, and all the content that I would teach in a related course. I even think it goes a little beyond. To my knowledge, this is the first time I have seen a text that includes a completely independent chapter on conflict and cooperation, these are usually contained within the aggression and helping chapters (which are also included). I also really like the inclusion of the section Thinking Like a Social Psychologist which I believe increases the comprehensiveness of the text. I believe that students will think more completely about the material because of the questions posed to them in this section. They will also be able to make links between course material and life events in a much easier and efficient way. I think this addition is an added bonus to the comprehensiveness!

I believe that the content of the text is accurate. I do not see any glaring misrepresentations of information. However, I would have liked to see more discussion of some of the classical research articles. For example, in the section of Attitude-behavior consistency, there is no discussion of classical articles claiming attitudes do not predict behavior (LaPiere, 1934 or Wicker, 1969). It seems like for certain sections there is a lot of historical context for the research and others are missing it. But this may be my own personal biases (in areas in which I do research and teach and I have more information). Overall, I do believe the text is written in an unbiased and accurate manner.

See above about some of the historical focus - I think this might add a little to the relevance. I also do think that because the text is written in an accurate and unbiased manner, it will stand the test of time. The content will not need to change drastically. However, the examples and current event media stories may become something that needs to be updated relatively regularly. I have found that with each passing year, students have become less and less aware of events that I consider current. Although they have basic knowledge, without additional details of the event, they may not be able to make the necessary connections. In addition, many of the hyperlinks in the text to the sites where these events are discussed may need to be updated. There are already a few (video and story) links that are no longer working. This might create a problem for the students and make the text a little less useful and relevant.

I really like the writing style of the author. The text was easy to follow and it is written at a level most students can understand.

In the preface the author mentions 2 underlying principles of Social (person and situation, and ABCs) and two human motivations (self-concern and other-concern), I really like this idea. I agree with the author that these are very important concepts in social psychology. I did notice while reading most (if not all) the chapters these 4 ideas are mentioned numerous times. I believe that having these consistent topics mentioned in every section of the book will help students make ties across topics that superficially seem like they have nothing in common. This is an innovative way to write a text in social psychology. In addition, I think there is a lot of consistency in the organization of each chapter (see comments for organization below).

I believe that this text is organized similarly to other Introduction to Social Psychology texts when it comes to chapter order and sequence. I do however, like the added information about organization in the preface. Discussing the text as organized by focus at different levels of analysis - individual, social, and group, is an asset, and allows instructors to structure the course at these levels as well. However, other than mentioning this in the preface, there is no other indication that the text is organized in this way. A table of contents or section title page might help readers make this distinction, since many instructors and students do not read the preface of a textbook. Overall, I think the modularity of this text is similar to most texts designed as an introductory text to Social Psychology..

I like that the chapters are similar in structure. Each starts with a media story or current event (although some of these are now dated and may not be relevant to students), which is followed by learning objectives for the section in the chapter. After discussing information and research on the topic of interest, each chapter ends with a section on Thinking like a Social Psychologist (and addition I really like) and then a brief chapter summary. I feel like this consistency is something students will like. It will help them find different types of information very easily once they recognize the structural organization.

There are some issues with the presentation of information. I tried to click on the very first video link in the text (Video Clip 1 on p. 3-4) and it sent me to a youtbe video error. I understand that not all videos on youtube remain for long periods of time, and this is not the fault of the author or publisher, but I wonder who, if anyone, maintains these when you use an open textbook? Are there alternative video formats that could be used.

I did like the ability to hyperlink to relevant figures or tables, this was very useful. However it was confusing to me that hyperlinks and important terms (vocabulary words) are in the same color. I found myself trying to click on vocabulary words through the first two chapters to see if a definition or text box would come up with additional information. I think it would be easier to follow if these two features had different appearances. Perhaps leave the hyperlinks blue (since most people identify those in that color) and make the important terms bold? It would take care of some confusion.

I would also like to see a table of contents page which includes not just chapter titles, but also subsections. That ways students could link off into their assigned reading from the table of contents. I used the bookmarks tool in adobe to do this, but students who are not tech-savy would not know about this, and I would have to spend class time teaching them to use this tool. It would just be easier if there was something there already for them.

I did not notice any grammatical errors or typos. The book seems to be relatively well written and is at a level of language that is easy to understand.

The text is culturally relevant. The pictures and images throughout the text contain people of different races and ethnic backgrounds. In addition, the text discusses research from other cultures and culture differences. The nature of social psychology takes into account social and cultural groups, so this text represents that well.

I do think the book has many strengths, and some weaknesses (as all other textbooks do), but for a free book for students, I think this is pretty good!

Reviewed by Dan Graham, Assistant Professor, Colorado State University on 1/7/16

This text covers all of the topics covered in the other social psychology texts I have used. (Some topics, such as emotions and happiness, are not presented in their own unique section within this text, as they are in others, but these topics are woven throughout this text in a way that works quite well to present this work and reinforce the connection between social behavior and, for example, emotion/well-being across multiple chapters.)

While there is a useful glossary in this textbook, there is no index. The lack of an index at first struck me as a major limitation to the text given the frequency with which I use the indices in hard-copy textbooks. However, given that this entire book is a searchable document, I found that I was able to quickly locate specific topics and researchers. Perhaps, in an online text like this, an index may not be necessary.

I did not encounter any wholly inaccurate statements in this text. I believe that some statements could be clearer – for example one Key Takeaway on page 247 reads as follows: “People who have extremely negative attributional styles, in which they continually make external, stable, and global attributions for their behavior, are said to be experiencing learned helplessness.” I think it should be clarified that this attributional style is damaging when employed in response to negative events. This clarification is made earlier, on page 245, in the text. But, on its own, the Key Takeaway as currently written seems incomplete.

The text balances classic research and historical examples with a good deal of research that has been published in the last five years and examples related to more recent history and technology. Such recent examples will need to be updated in future editions, but no more so than any other Social Psych text I have seen.

Nearly everything in this text was quite clear. One section I found that struck me as potentially unclear was the description of how quick decisions lead to approach or avoidance on page 164: “Snake = bad ? run away; Blueberries = good ? eat” seemed to me to be missing some descriptors that would make these examples clearer.

I found terminology consistent in the text. One structural aspect of the text that I thought was slightly inconsistent was the use of embedded links: I really like how every line of the Table of Contents is a link to the appropriate portion of the text. This is very handy, but it was only serendipitously that I discovered these links. In my pdf version, these Contents links were not visually evident as they were in other locations such as the noticeable blue embedded links to videos and Figures within the text – these were great. I also think it would be handy to have links from the in-text citations to the full reference for articles at the end of the text. Finally, some links did not take me where they said they would. For example, in the preface, the links in the Social Psychology in the Public Interest description appear to be directing readers to various chapters within the text, but instead redirected me to a webpage.

The text is broken down into an appropriate number of chapters and subsections, and within each subsection, there are no excessively long blocks of unbroken text. I think it would be easier for students to search and navigate within the text if chapters were labeled with the word “Chapter” and if the chapter headings were larger and more obvious.

The text was organized quite sensibly and quite similarly to other Social Psychology texts I have taught from (e.g., Baron & Branscombe’s Social Psychology) I like the “Key Takeaways” sections at the end of each section, I think this provides good repetition for students. I also like the “Exercises and Critical Thinking” sections – I think these would work well not only for students to undertake on their own, but also for pair-and-share and group discussions in class. I really like the “Social Psychology in the Public Interest” portions of the text that explain to students how this material applies to relevant and timely topics in their lives (e.g., internet relationships, terrorism, violence prevention).

I found the text’s interface to be user-friendly in many ways: As mentioned previously, I like the imbedded video links, enabling students to just click to access resources as they read. This seems quite likely to increase the number of students who view recommended external resources compared with students reading a hard-copy textbook. I did think that some interface modifications could increase the usability: This may simply be an issue of different functionality across various pdf viewing programs and unrelated to the text itself, but I thought it would be nice to allow students to make notes right on the text itself, as in the case of the Twenty Statements Test on page 111. Some figures were quite small and difficult to read even when the book was viewed at 100% size (e.g., Figures 2.7, 6.13, 8.8). This is one great advantage of online textbooks though, it is possible to enlarge the figures and easily read them when magnified. Also, I encountered some spacing issues (e.g., page 60: no space between “prefrontal cortexthe part…”; page 169 spacing in Figure 4.3 caption.)

I encountered few grammatical errors, and those that I saw were minor (e.g., the word “are” is missing in Exercise 3 on page 504; the word “them” should be “they” in the final Key Takeaway on page 522). I was, however, a bit distracted by the formatting within the References sections: Reference formatting appears to follow APA style, other than indentation – which is different (left-justified) for first publication on most (but not all – see pages 198, 284) lists than for all subsequent publications (e.g., pages 26-28).

I found the text to be inclusive of research relevant across cultural, racial, ethnic, gender, age, and other groups. I liked that some of the critical thinking prompts asked students to reflect on issues of culture and their role both in the students’ own lives and in society (e.g., “Imagine you are a teacher in a classroom and you see that some children [are] expressing prejudice or discrimination toward other children on the basis of their race. What techniques would you use to attempt to reduce these negative behaviors?”)

After reviewing this text, I have found it to be comparable to the textbooks I have assigned to my Social Psychology students in previous semesters. I plan to adopt this open text for my own courses and will recommend it to colleagues.

Reviewed by Chris Montoya , Tenured Senior Lecturer , Thompson Rivers University on 10/9/13

I compared "Introduction to Social Psychology" openstax college TM to three exemplar textbooks that I had previously taught from. Those texts were: Robert S. Feldman (2001), Social Psychology 3rd Edition, Prentice Hall New Jersey ISBN: 0 – 13 - 027479 - 8 Alcock, J.E., Carment, D.W. & Sadava, S.W., (2005), A Textbook of Social Psychology, 6th Edition, Pearson Canada Inc., Toronto, ISBN 0 - 13 – 121741 - 0 Aronson, E., Wilson, T.D., Fehr, B. & Akert, R.M., (2013), Social Psychology, 5th Canadian Edition, Pearson Canada Inc., ISBN 978 - 0- 13 - 216539 - 6 In the 11 commentaries, I have compared the current textbook to the 3 exemplars. It is upon these comparisons that I base my comments. Chris Montoya BC Open Textbooks Review Criteria for the Saylor Textbook: Introduction to Social Psychology. Of some interest is the fact that the creator's name was withheld on request. 1. Comprehensiveness - The text covers all areas and ideas of the subject appropriately and provides an effective index and/or glossary. Compared to the other three textbooks on social psychology that I used as templates I have concluded that the Saylor textbook covers all areas and ideas of the subject appropriately. However, and disturbingly, there is no real chapter index, author index with page numbers, or glossary of terms. As an educator I find this most distracting. In my younger days as a student I would run to a chapter table of contents, author index, or glossary of terms at the end of the book. It was always most helpful when the terms were associated with an exact definition, and appropriate page numbers. Often times in the text certain terms are not defined in all areas. Having a glossary really helps. Not having an excellent Subject Index in a textbook or an adequate Chapter Index (Table of Contents) I feel is a great hindrance and deficiency in the current text that I am reviewing. All three of the other exemplar texts have excellent subject indexes. As an instructor I would not use a text that lacked these essential features. I realize that this is an open online text and students can type in words they are unfamiliar with, however, it is the very fact that they are unfamiliar with these terms that concerns me. Whereas I have no problem navigating the nomological pitfalls I feel that the author is assuming a basic level of understanding that the majority of second and third year university students do not have.

2. Content Accuracy – Content, including diagrams and other supplementary material, is accurate, error-free and unbiased. The content is accurate and compelling. The author writes in an unbiased, objective, and persuasive scientific manner. The diagrams, however, are simplistic, flat, and lack color. In the exemplar texts there were an average of three colors per page. In the current text there were two. In addition, the earth tones used made the reading of what should have been interesting material bland. I find it interesting that in a social psychology textbook there are no actual photographs of people interacting. These types of actual color photographs add dimension, depth, and engage the hearts of the students. In the three other textbooks there are photographs of people interacting in all manner of social, political, emotional, and business etc. environments. By not having actual photographs of people I find that the book comes across as less interesting than its content would otherwise suggest. In addition, the author uses italicized words to highlight I find the addition of bold words embedded in the paragraphs or color words in the margins (as in the other three texts) really highlights important concepts. In general, having taught face-to-face, blended, synchronous, asynchronous, print, web, and online courses, I find that certain excellent features in standard Hard Copy Textbooks also NEED to be incorporated in online copies.

3. Relevance/Longevity – Content is up-to-date, but not in a way that will quickly make the text obsolete within a short period of time. The text is written and/or arranged in such a way that necessary updates will be relatively easy and straightforward to implement. I am assuming that the text has a publication date of 2013. The three other exemplar texts had references dating to within two years of their publication dates. In addition, all texts had discussed papers that were currently in press. Therefore the contents of the textbook are current and up-to-date. The text is also written in a style that will last. We see further because we stand on the shoulders of giants. This well-known quote applies to all well-written textbooks. As such, for the current textbook, necessary updates will be easy and straightforward to implement.

4. Clarity - The text is written in lucid, accessible prose, and provides adequate context for any jargon/technical terminology used. The current text is easy to follow, easy to comprehend, and is not overly burdened with jargon or dry statistics. The text, therefore, is clear, and what profs call in the area an easy read. One point: The author seems to write in an older style for instance the definition of self-concept on page 167: "The self-concept is a knowledge representation that contains knowledge about us, including our beliefs about our personality traits, physical characteristics, abilities, values, goals, and roles as well as the knowledge that we exist as individuals." Compared to the 2013 Social Psychology Comparison Text definition: "The contents of the self; that is, our knowledge about who we are." This simple definition appears to the side of the prose in the textbook page 124 highlighted in Bold Large Print Orange & also appears in a most excellent glossary of terms page 498. The text in the rest of the page fleshes out further meaning.

8. Interface – The text is free of significant interface issues, including navigation problems, distortion of images/charts, and any other display features that may distract or confuse the reader. I don't want to go into too much detail, however, and for example there are minor irritations in the text that concern me. For example in a finished text subheadings should not appear at the bottom of the page with no text below them. On page 66, the subheading: How Schemas Maintain Themselves... is so positioned. In addition, on page 67 under the heading research focus concerning confirmation bias, the author refers to a figure without stating the figure number. He's talking about figure 2.1 but simply says you can see in the following figure. When writing textbooks, or book chapters, or international peer-reviewed journal articles, the interface between what is written and the graphs provided is indeed critical. This pattern of not referring to graphs, charts, and tables continues throughout the textbook.

9. Grammatical Errors – The text contains no grammatical errors. None that I found, although I do not tend to spend too much time looking for grammar errors. I speed read and scan, when I did start looking … On page 629 Theblack Sheep Effect … The and black were run together… again I am sure that you have grammar editors for such mundane tasks.

10. Cultural Relevance – The text is not culturally insensitive or offensive in any way. It should make use of examples that are inclusive of a variety of races, ethnicities, and backgrounds. I am not sure… In Canada we tend not to use the terms Whites and Blacks on page 94 the author uses the following sentence: White, Black, and Hispanic or Mexican-American… The author continues using the White and Black references on the following pages, 614 616 622 628 629.., and more... In addition, we tend not to use the word Indian in Canadian literature but prefer First Nations. Starting on page 315 there are five references to "Indian" that I found. Other than these two questionable areas I found the text to be well rounded and non-offensive.

11. Are there any other comments you would like to make about this book, for example, its appropriateness in a Canadian context or specific updates you think need to be made? ... personal preference bonobo monkeys... I refer to these in my lecturers because they make love not war. The 2013 Social Psychology comparison text makes mention : )the current text does not. I find this text appropriate for 4th year University Students although I would not use it for the above listed reasons. I hope this review is useful to your work. This review originated in the BC Open Textbook Collection and is licensed under CC BY-ND.

Reviewed by Dawn-Louise McLeod, Course Editor, Thompson Rivers University - Open Learning on 10/9/13

The textbook is very through regarding all areas and ideas of the subject. Further, the author presents a clear pedagogical framework: the text applies cognitive load theory, moving, as the writer tells us in the Preface that it will be, "systematically from lower to higher levels of analysis" (p. 3), which, as instructional developers and students, we know is a method that works in acquiring new information and knowledge. The writer is well grounded and has a specific focus in the subject through years of teaching and provides many supportive resources, such as real-life examples, video clips, topic summaries, and exercises, and external website URLs, to name a few. However, there is no index, nor is there a glossary. It would be useful, given the amount of terminology in this textbook, to have two sets of glossaries per chapter. One set would appear after the Key Takeaways section (which appears at the end of each topic) and could be called Key Terms, and the other set would be a Chapter Terms section at the end of the chapter, appearing directly after the Chapter Summary. Further, there would be a glossary at the end of the textbook, with page references. These terms would also be included in the index. In the Exercises and Critical Thinking sections, students are asked to define terminology, but because there is no glossary or answer key to the exercises, there is no place for students to compare their definitions with those of the author.

Content appears to be mostly accurate and error-free. Reference lists are consistently and accurately formatted according to APA Style (6th ed.), as are in-text citations—kudos! I checked most of them and found very few, minor errors, other than the spacing issue that I will explain later in this review. There were some errors: for example, Hans Selye's surname was incorrectly spelled as "Seyle" five times (on pp. 125, 126, and 128). Also, check the Rosenberg Scale on p. 182; I think it should say "average number on non-reverse items on the scale is 3 out of 4." Also, I am fairly certain that no explanation was attached to the Research Focus sections. From the examples used throughout, I detected a certain amount of bias. The target audience for the textbook itself (not including the Preface) seems to be limited to young, North American, college students. It might be appropriate, given the subject matter, to include a more diverse audience base, such as students from other cultures and in a range of age groups. Also, there is a bias toward a positive thinking approach; there is no mention of cognitive behavioural therapy or other approaches used in psychotherapy. Holmes and Rahe's stress scale is only one approach; others are not mentioned.

Many real-life illustrative sections (used to illustrate a concept, such as the concept of self) are provided throughout the textbook, generally at the beginning of a chapter or section. Both students and instructors can quickly find and tap into these for in-classroom or self-study. These will have to be updated periodically, although some can remain (not be replaced/swapped out). For example, the Dancing Matt Harding reference is already outdated, since Harding has released more videos since 2008. Further, it might be a good idea to use physical separation (in addition to, or perhaps instead of, the use of italic font) between the example material and the textbook commentary, particularly if any third-party material is used. Suggestion: set out some of these illustrative sections as case studies (maybe one case study per chapter) followed later in the topic by exercises and reflective questions that refer back to the case studies.

The writing is lucid and accessible, although paragraphs tend to be on the long side. They could be broken up as appropriate and more expositive subheadings could be introduced to help chunk the content (something an editor could help with). Italic font is used for several purposes: (1) for the illustrative real-life examples of concepts, (2) sometimes for key terms, and (3) for in-text definitions of these key terms. Definitions are sometimes italicized, but additional non-essential words are included (see p. 126 for an example). The Preface should include an explanation of any such font choice and the first chapter should include a reminder of what the author has decided to do in this regard and then apply the choice consistently. Context for jargon and/or technical terminology is provided, particularly by way of the illustrative examples mentioned earlier and in the self-assessment quizzes (such as the true or false quiz on p. 32).

The framework could benefit from minor changes. Font colour, when referring to a table or figure in text, could be matched when referring to the captions. In the interest of visual consistency, I recommend that the same colour be used for both the caption

The text is currently chunked into numbered topics. This is helpful to instructors who, when designing learning activities that include readings from this textbook, can refer to topic readings by number, and to students, who want to refer back to those topics. The numbering also enables reorganization/realignment of material, especially in a course that may be presented in a non-linear fashion, and it creates a sense of progression through the material. However, as mentioned in the previous section, there are large blocks of unbroken text. More subheadings are needed. Also, providing a mini-table of contents at the start of each chapter could serve as an advance organizer, a heads-up to all readers regarding what to expect in that chapter. One way to organize this in each chapter is to have the mini TOC I have suggested including, then the Learning Objectives and the real-life illustrative example for that chapter.

Information throughout is laddered appropriately, in alignment with the author's statement in the Preface about the systematic ordering of the information. The structure of the textbook and the complexity of the ideas presented builds; the commentary is flowing and easy to understand. Even more clarity and organization could be provided by using a "roadmap" at the beginning of the textbook and at the start of each chapter to visually layout the topics and concepts covered. I would prefer to give a 4.5 in this section rather than a perfect 5, because this roadmap/visual index could really enhance the organization of the book and make its framework obvious.

There are many areas throughout the entire textbook where the space between words has been omitted (I counted around 89 in the first chapter alone); this is the spacing problem I mentioned earlier when talking about the APA citations and the job well done on those. Subheadings need to stand out from body text (see, for example, p. 93). Captions are sometimes inconsistently titled, and these need to be consistent throughout so as to avoid any confusion for readers. Also, it's preferable not to use quotation marks around in-text references to table or figure titles. Number Key Takeaways sections to match the topic number—this would aid readers when searching for materials (especially when reading the textbook online). Number and caption ALL images/diagrams/figures/tables (example: pp. 65, 72 images have no captions). Include the figure number and title with the caption itself instead of separating it; otherwise, the caption could be confused with the body text (the commentary).

There are minor grammatical errors (for example, on p. 50, use "a(n") in diagram.

I have also mentioned in my answer to an earlier question my impression about the apparent target audience for this textbook. Again, it feels as if, from the examples used and places mentioned when discussing a concept, that the intended audience members are predominantly North American (and possibly of European extraction), have English as a first language, are familiar with dorms and fraternities, and are young. This could also be because much of the research referred to is of North American origin. Halloween is mentioned (p. 174), as is Christmas (p. 130), but many students will not be familiar, especially not first hand, with those cultural or religious traditions. I may, however, be sensitive to this type of bias because I work at a university with many international students, and I do acknowledge that the subject of social psychology is based on North American and European research. But what do researchers in other parts of the world have to say about social psychology? Also, I assume by the places referred to (such as "Seattle," "dorms"), the spelling (American, as opposed to Canadian or British), and other Americanisms that this textbook is US-centric, which is fine, but could pose a problem if taught in Canadian universities. Both students and instructors would expect a Canadian textbook and attach more credibility to it than to an American one, which is why there are often Canadian editions of course textbooks (at least, that's what we use predominantly in the university where I work). Illustrative examples need to be more globally focused, too.

Provide answer keys and/or sample answers for the exercises included in the textbook. Include a glossary and index. Consider the cultural, social, environmental, and national context in which this textbook might be used. Use more informative and engaging diagrams. Update all real-life examples. Fix the spacing issues. Break up long paragraphs and use more subheadings. Use mini TOCs at the start of each chapter. Strong points are the extensive and wonderfully APA-formatted references, the comprehensiveness of the material, and the engaging and empathic writing style. This review originated in the BC Open Textbook Collection and is licensed under CC BY-ND.

Reviewed by Rajiv Jhangiani, Instructor, Capilano University on 10/9/13

On the whole, this text covers all of the topics one would expect to see within a social psychology textbook. However, the author has made some interesting choices that reflect his pedagogical goals and biases. For example, instead of including separate applications of social psychological principles in separate modules at the end of the text (what has become a common approach in the field), he has instead integrated applications (e.g., for health, law, the environment, clinical settings, etc.) within the chapters. On the one hand this is a good idea and allows students to see some possible applications of concepts as they learn them. On the other hand it results in chapters running a bit long and students encountering additional terms and information before they have had a chance to master the basics. The text includes some good pedagogical features, including learning objectives embedded within each module within each chapter, useful exercises at the end of each module, and a section within each chapter on social psychology in the public interest (applications of social psychological principles). For the most part the organization of chapters follows a fairly standard template starting with methods and going on to social cognition, the self, attitudes, social influence, attraction, prosocial behaviour, aggression, groups, and prejudice. However, an early focus on social learning (Chapter 2) and social affect (Chapter 3) is unusual in its prominence (most social psychology textbooks do not include a separate chapter on social affect). The text does not include a table of contents or an index, both of which are highly desirable.

I did not encounter any obvious errors or problems with the accuracy of the content. Strangor supplies a (sometimes long) list of references at the end of each module within each chapter, which is helpful. Note: The text makes occasional reference to video clips (e.g., See Video Clip 1) that are not available to the reader.

Strangor balances the introduction of classic and contemporary research within each chapter. Given the hierarchical organization of the text (learning objectives within modules within chapters) updates could target specific topic areas. One quibble: Many of the examples provided are fairly outdated (e.g., a 1997 mass suicide, President Bush's approval ratings in 2001, etc.).

The text is written accessibly. Learning objectives and chapter summaries further assist comprehension.

The text is internally consistent. Strangor follows the same pattern in every chapter which makes for a predictable and manageable format. His stated goal was to work from simpler to more complex topics and he makes an effort to build on the information p

The text is well organized into chapters and modules within each chapter. Each module includes useful exercises that help consolidate learning.

For the most part the organization of chapters follows a fairly standard template starting with methods and going on to social cognition, the self, attitudes, social influence, attraction, prosocial behaviour, aggression, groups, and prejudice. However, an early focus on social learning (Chapter 2) and especially social affect (Chapter 3) is unusual in its prominence (most social psychology textbooks do not include a separate chapter on social affect). There are also sub-topics within the text that appear to borrow heavily in content and tone from traditional chapters in an introductory psychology text (e.g., operant conditioning, eyewitness memory, Selye's general adaptation syndrome, etc.). Given that Strangor has also authored an open introductory psychology text this is likely not a coincidence.

The charts and illustrations are clear. However, there are several oddly formatted graphs (e.g., page 256, 347, etc.) in which the bars are inexplicably clustered together towards the left end of the x-axis. Directions to view non-existent video clips should be omitted.

I did not encounter any grammatical errors but the text does need proof-reading. For example, occasionally there are sets of words printed together with no space in between.

I did not come across anything I would consider insensitive or offensive. However, as far as cultural relevance is concerned, this text is a US edition and the examples (e.g., "How the Obama campaign effectively used persuasion to defeat John McCain") and statistics used throughout the text strongly reflect this. Some of the examples (e.g., George Bush's approval ratings in 2001) are also a bit dated, even for a US text. A second year university student in 2013 would have been 7 years old in 2001.

This text needs significant updates to the real life examples used for their relevance within a Canadian context. This review originated in the BC Open Textbook Collection and is licensed under CC BY-ND.

Reviewed by Jennifer Walinga, Associate Professor and School Director, Royal Roads University on 10/9/13

Charles Stangor, author, frames the text around the two human motivations of self-concern and other-concern then uses this frame to focus discussions on a variety of individual and social dimensions including altruism, aggression, prejudice, gender differences, and cultural differences, etc. Grounding the text in the fundamental principles helps to anchor the reader in the two key concepts of social pscyh throughout their learning/reading experience which then ensures the learner consistently looks through the lens of a social psychologist, and then links their learning back to these fundamental premises. Such an approach is comprehensive yet cohesive. Providing a conceptual anchor enables the reader to diverge into multiple related concepts and contexts more freely because s/he always has a home base or reference point.

Stangor's examples tend to be 'negative', primarily focused on negative behaviours or influences as opposed to the positive i.e. the ways people harm each other as opposed to help. Even the introduction describes a mass suicide. Examples tend to be shock oriented, perhaps indicative of the bias that undergrads have short attention spans. A broader range of examples and affect is encouraged. In terms of accuracy, the text is well supported, cited, and explained. It appears to be error free.

Stangor is careful to provide a range of citations and references dating back to the earliest cases or theories and including the most recent commentary or developments. In this way, he illustrates the evolution of social psychology and also suggests that it is a social science under continuous development. Such an approach leaves the text open to updates while communicating the idea that a body of research is to under constant evolution and open to continuous contribution and challenge. Stangor also accomplishes the task of illustrating that concepts have originators or major theorists who shall not be discounted or considered obsolete simply because of the date beside their name but that they play a significant role in the development of a construct or insight. The text's effective use of headings enables an editor to focus on a specific area or areas for updating. The references are linked and collated, and therefore easy to expand and update. The simple and repetitive structure is comforting to the reader yet each section is complex and multifaceted enough to provide interest. At the same time, the clear structure provides editors with an easy means to update sections by providing a pattern of components to cycle through.

This text is simply organized and clearly structured providing a rhythmic organizational 'pattern' which enables easy reading and access for the student. Opening with 'Learning Objectives' and ending with 'Key Takeaways' and 'Critical Thinking Exercises' gives the text a pedagogical cohesion and focus while providing the reader with short overviews of each chapter. Some of the allusions are dated i.e. 'be a pepper!' and in order to captivate the undergrad audience, it would be important to ensure that these references are current. The Critical Thinking questions and exercises are rather simplistic and limiting asking yes/no questions at times, and suggesting rather uninspiring and one-dimensional activities i.e. read about...and compose a short report... create a presentation that summarizes. More of this kind of activity are suggested: 'Based on our discussion of resistance to persuasion, what techniques would you use to help a child resist the pressure to start smoking or using recreational drugs?' Video clips, websites, figures and links are interwoven throughout the text for interest and extension. In the Public Interest sections are relevant, applied and purposefully constructed. Easy updating possible. Chapter summaries appreciated by the reader and illustrate an effective summary section that not only highlights the key points of a chapter, but discusses the wider social and human implications for these concepts.

The internal consistency is a key strength of this text. As mentioned earlier, the structure of the book is cyclical and repetitive while sustaining complexity, interest, and variation. The structure includes multiple components, but these are repeated in

While Stangor presents a sensible ordering of concepts in his layout, he also leaves the instructor the freedom to re-order or select specific sections as standalone chapters or sub chapters. This characteristic also makes the text relevant to other contexts, courses, and disciplines. As an interdisciplinary field, Social Psych has relevance to many subject areas such as business, health, law, communication, and education. I imagine an instructor in business management feeling free to assign chapters 11 and/or 12 to illustrate the social psychological underpinnings of the organization or to explore the role of diversity and interculturalism within the workplace.

Stangor has organized the topics from lower to higher levels of analysis which provides a general enough flow without constraining the instructor to a complex obscurely linked or too intricate organizational framework. The flow of the individual chapters is also coherent. The framework for each chapter is captured in the learning objectives and introductory paragraph for ease of reading and access. The reasoning or relationships governing the organizational framework of the chapter are also described in the introductory framework. One could of course argue with Stangor's frameworks; however, this in itself may provide fodder for an engaging discussion in the class.

The figures and charts are all clear, colourful, simple, linked and well supported and/or referenced.

There appear to be no grammatical errors.

The intercultural sensitivity and awareness illustrated within this text is one of its strengths. Topics, references, issues, references, and examples are from a diverse spectrum but also attend to particular issues of diversity or interculturalism in an insightful, modern, and relevant manner. Chapter 12 of course addresses the issue of 'Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination' directly, but interculturalism is a thread woven into all of the chapters and sections. One weakness of the text is the simplistic nature of its conceptualization of 'culture' as something that is bound by national boundaries alone. Throughout the text, culture is described in terms of national or hemispheric characteristics i.e. individualistic and collectivistic, Western and East Asian. This reviewer would argue for a more sophisticated worldview and discussion of culture as extending to values, beliefs and assumptions as determined by myriad factors including but not limited to race or geography; cultural factors also include education, heritage, economics, experience, employment, history, social influencers, etc.

This book has mostly American references i.e. Obama, advertisements, cultural norms, educational systems, news stories. Canada is mentioned only 7 times compared to America/n which is mentioned 133. This review originated in the BC Open Textbook Collection and is licensed under CC BY-ND.

Chapter 1: Introducing Social Psychology
Chapter 2: Social Learning and Social Cognition
Chapter 3: Social Affect
Chapter 4: The Self
Chapter 5: Attitudes, Behavior, and Persuasion
Chapter 6: Perceiving Others
Chapter 7: Influencing and Conforming
Chapter 8: Liking and Loving
Chapter 9: Helping and Altruism
Chapter 10: Aggression
Chapter 11: Working Groups: Performance and Decision Making
Chapter 12: Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination
Chapter 13: Competition and Cooperation in Our Social Worlds

Ancillary Material

University of Minnesota Libraries Publishing

About the Book

Have you ever had trouble teaching the various topics of social psychology and fitting them together to form a coherent field? Unnamed Author felt like he was presenting a laundry list of ideas, research studies, and phenomena, rather than an integrated set of principles and knowledge. He wondered how his students could be expected to remember and understand the many phenomena that social psychologists study? How could they tell what was most important? It was then that he realized a fresh approach to a Social Psychology textbook was needed to structure and integrate student learning; thus, Principles of Social Psychology was born. This textbook is based on a critical thinking approach, and its aim is to get students thinking actively and conceptually – with a greater focus on the forest than the trees. Yes, there are right and wrong answers, but the answers are not the only thing. What is perhaps even more important is how students get to the answers – the thinking process itself. To help students better grasp the big picture of social psychology, and to provide you with a theme that you can use to organize your lectures, Unnamed Author's text has a consistent pedagogy across the chapters. The presentation is organized around two underlying principles that are essential to social psychology:

Person and Situation (the classic treatment) The ABCs of social psychology (Affect, Behavior, and Cognition)

The author believes these dimensions are fundamental, that they are extremely heuristic, and that they are what he hopes your students (and his) will learn and remember. You may find that this organization represents a more explicit representation of what you're already doing in your lectures. Although the pedagogy is consistent, it is not constraining. You can and will use these dimensions more in some lectures than in others, and you will find them more useful for some topics than others. But they will always work for you when you are ready for them.

Perhaps most important, a focus on these dimensions helps us bridge the gap between the textbook, the real-life experiences of our students, and our class presentations. It is almost impossible to can't cover every phenomenon in your lectures – you can naturally let the textbook fill in the details. The goal of Principles of Social Psychology is to allow you to rest assured that the text has provided your students with the foundations– the fundamental language of social psychology – from which you can build as you see fit. And when you turn to ask students to apply their learning to real life, you can know that they will be doing this as social psychologists do – using a basic underlying framework.

A note about the organization of this text: it moves systematically from lower to higher levels of analysis – a method that makes sense to students. On the other hand, Unnamed Author insists, the chapter order should not constrain you – choose a different order if you wish. Chapter 1 presents an introduction to social psychology and the research methods in social psychology, Chapter 2 presents the fundamental principles of social cognition, and Chapter 3 focuses on social affect. The remainder of the text is organized around three levels of analysis, moving systematically from the individual level (Chapters 4-6), to the level of social interaction (Chapters 7-10) to the group and cultural level (Chapters 11-13).

Rather than relying on “modules” or “appendices” of applied materials, this text integrates applied concepts into the text itself. This approach is consistent with the underlying theme that if students learn to think like social psychologists they will easily and naturally apply that knowledge to any and all applications. The following applications are woven throughout the text:

Business and Consumer behavior
Environment

It is the "thinking like a social psychologist" theme, structured approach and new pedagogy (like research foci and Social Psychology in the Public Interest), that will make teaching and learning Social Psychology from this textbook an even more exciting and rewarding endeavor.

Contribute to this Page

Psychology Experiment Ideas

Categories Psychology Education

Quick Ideas | Experiment Ideas | Designing Your Experiment | Types of Research

If you are taking a psychology class, you might at some point be asked to design an imaginary experiment or perform an experiment or study. The idea you ultimately choose to use for your psychology experiment may depend upon the number of participants you can find, the time constraints of your project, and limitations in the materials available to you.

Consider these factors before deciding which psychology experiment idea might work for your project.

This article discusses some ideas you might try if you need to perform a psychology experiment or study.

Table of Contents

A Quick List of Experiment Ideas

If you are looking for a quick experiment idea that would be easy to tackle, the following might be some research questions you want to explore:

How many items can people hold in short-term memory ?
Are people with a Type A personality more stressed than those with a Type B personality?
Does listening to upbeat music increase heart rate?
Are men or women better at detecting emotions ?
Are women or men more likely to experience imposter syndrome ?
Will students conform if others in the group all share an opinion that is different from their own?
Do people’s heartbeat or breathing rates change in response to certain colors?
How much do people rely on nonverbal communication to convey information in a conversation?
Do people who score higher on measures of emotional intelligence also score higher on measures of overall well-being?
Do more successful people share certain personality traits ?

Most of the following ideas are easily conducted with a small group of participants, who may likely be your classmates. Some of the psychology experiment or study ideas you might want to explore:

Sleep and Short-Term Memory

Does sleep deprivation have an impact on short-term memory ?

Ask participants how much sleep they got the night before and then conduct a task to test short-term memory for items on a list.

Social Media and Mental Health

Is social media usage linked to anxiety or depression?

Ask participants about how many hours a week they use social media sites and then have them complete a depression and anxiety assessment.

Procrastination and Stress

How does procrastination impact student stress levels?

Ask participants about how frequently they procrastinate on their homework and then have them complete an assessment looking at their current stress levels.

Caffeine and Cognition

How does caffeine impact performance on a Stroop test?

In the Stroop test , participants are asked to tell the color of a word, rather than just reading the word. Have a control group consume no caffeine and then complete a Stroop test, and then have an experimental group consume caffeine before completing the same test. Compare results.

Color and Memory

Does the color of text have any impact on memory?

Randomly assign participants to two groups. Have one group memorize words written in black ink for two minutes. Have the second group memorize the same words for the same amount of time, but instead written in red ink. Compare the results.

Weight Bias

How does weight bias influence how people are judged by others?

Find pictures of models in a magazine who look similar, including similar hair and clothing, but who differ in terms of weight. Have participants look at the two models and then ask them to identify which one they think is smarter, wealthier, kinder, and healthier.

Assess how each model was rated and how weight bias may have influenced how they were described by participants.

Music and Exercise

Does music have an effect on how hard people work out?

Have people listen to different styles of music while jogging on a treadmill and measure their walking speed, heart rate, and workout length.

The Halo Effect

How does the Halo Effect influence how people see others?

Show participants pictures of people and ask them to rate the photos in terms of how attractive, kind, intelligent, helpful, and successful the people in the images are.

How does the attractiveness of the person in the photo correlate to how participants rate other qualities? Are attractive people more likely to be perceived as kind, funny, and intelligent?

Eyewitness Testimony

How reliable is eyewitness testimony?

Have participants view video footage of a car crash. Ask some participants to describe how fast the cars were going when they “hit into” each other. Ask other participants to describe how fast the cars were going when they “smashed into” each other.

Give the participants a memory test a few days later and ask them to recall if they saw any broken glass at the accident scene. Compare to see if those in the “smashed into” condition were more likely to report seeing broken glass than those in the “hit into” group.

The experiment is a good illustration of how easily false memories can be triggered.

Simple Psychology Experiment Ideas

If you are looking for a relatively simple psychology experiment idea, here are a few options you might consider.

The Stroop Effect

This classic experiment involves presenting participants with words printed in different colors and asking them to name the color of the ink rather than read the word. Students can manipulate the congruency of the word and the color to test the Stroop effect.

Memory Recall

Students can design a simple experiment to test memory recall by presenting participants with a list of items to remember and then asking them to recall the items after a delay. Students can manipulate the length of the delay or the type of encoding strategy used to see the effect on recall.

Social Conformity

Students can test social conformity by presenting participants with a simple task and manipulating the responses of confederates to see if the participant conforms to the group response.

Selective Attention

Students can design an experiment to test selective attention by presenting participants with a video or audio stimulus and manipulating the presence or absence of a distracting stimulus to see the effect on attention.

Implicit Bias

Students can test implicit bias by presenting participants with a series of words or images and measuring their response time to categorize the stimuli into different categories.

The Primacy/Recency Effect

Students can test the primacy /recency effect by presenting participants with a list of items to remember and manipulating the order of the items to see the effect on recall.

Sleep Deprivation

Students can test the effect of sleep deprivation on cognitive performance by comparing the performance of participants who have had a full night’s sleep to those who have been deprived of sleep.

These are just a few examples of simple psychology experiment ideas for students. The specific experiment will depend on the research question and resources available.

Elements of a Good Psychology Experiment

Finding psychology experiment ideas is not necessarily difficult, but finding a good experimental or study topic that is right for your needs can be a little tough. You need to find something that meets the guidelines and, perhaps most importantly, is approved by your instructor.

Requirements may vary, but you need to ensure that your experiment, study, or survey is:

Easy to set up and carry out
Easy to find participants willing to take part
Free of any ethical concerns

In some cases, you may need to present your idea to your school’s institutional review board before you begin to obtain permission to work with human participants.

Consider Your Own Interests

At some point in your life, you have likely pondered why people behave in certain ways. Or wondered why certain things seem to always happen. Your own interests can be a rich source of ideas for your psychology experiments.

As you are trying to come up with a topic or hypothesis, try focusing on the subjects that fascinate you the most. If you have a particular interest in a topic, look for ideas that answer questions about the topic that you and others may have. Examples of topics you might choose to explore include:

Development
Personality
Social behavior

This can be a fun opportunity to investigate something that appeals to your interests.

Read About Classic Experiments

Sometimes reviewing classic psychological experiments that have been done in the past can give you great ideas for your own psychology experiments. For example, the false memory experiment above is inspired by the classic memory study conducted by Elizabeth Loftus.

Textbooks can be a great place to start looking for topics, but you might want to expand your search to research journals. When you find a study that sparks your interest, read through the discussion section. Researchers will often indicate ideas for future directions that research could take.

Ask Your Instructor

Your professor or instructor is often the best person to consult for advice right from the start.

In most cases, you will probably receive fairly detailed instructions about your assignment. This may include information about the sort of topic you can choose or perhaps the type of experiment or study on which you should focus.

If your instructor does not assign a specific subject area to explore, it is still a great idea to talk about your ideas and get feedback before you get too invested in your topic idea. You will need your teacher’s permission to proceed with your experiment anyway, so now is a great time to open a dialogue and get some good critical feedback.

Experiments vs. Other Types of Research

One thing to note, many of the ideas found here are actually examples of surveys or correlational studies .

For something to qualify as a tru e experiment, there must be manipulation of an independent variable .

For many students, conducting an actual experiment may be outside the scope of their project or may not be permitted by their instructor, school, or institutional review board.

If your assignment or project requires you to conduct a true experiment that involves controlling and manipulating an independent variable, you will need to take care to choose a topic that will work within the guidelines of your assignment.

Types of Psychology Experiments

There are many different types of psychology experiments that students could perform. Examples of psychological research methods you might use include:

Correlational Study

This type of study examines the relationship between two variables. Students could collect data on two variables of interest, such as stress and academic performance, and see if there is a correlation between the two.

Experimental Study

In an experimental study, students manipulate one variable and observe the effect on another variable. For example, students could manipulate the type of music participants listen to and observe its effect on their mood.

Observational Study

Observational studies involve observing behavior in a natural setting . Students could observe how people interact in a public space and analyze the patterns they see.

Survey Study

Students could design a survey to collect data on a specific topic, such as attitudes toward social media, and analyze the results.

A case study involves in-depth analysis of a single individual or group. Students could conduct a case study of a person with a particular disorder, such as anxiety or depression, and examine their experiences and treatment options.

Quasi-Experimental Study

Quasi-experimental studies are similar to experimental studies, but participants are not randomly assigned to groups. Students could investigate the effects of a treatment or intervention on a particular group, such as a classroom of students who receive a new teaching method.

Longitudinal Study

Longitudinal studies involve following participants over an extended period of time. Students could conduct a longitudinal study on the development of language skills in children or the effects of aging on cognitive abilities.

These are just a few examples of the many different types of psychology experiments that students could perform. The specific type of experiment will depend on the research question and the resources available.

Steps for Doing a Psychology Experiment

When conducting a psychology experiment, students should follow several important steps. Here is a general outline of the process:

Define the Research Question

Before conducting an experiment, students should define the research question they are trying to answer. This will help them to focus their study and determine the variables they need to manipulate and measure.

Develop a Hypothesis

Based on the research question, students should develop a hypothesis that predicts the experiment’s outcome. The hypothesis should be testable and measurable.

Select Participants

Students should select participants who meet the criteria for the study. Participants should be informed about the study and give informed consent to participate.

Design the Experiment

Students should design the experiment to test their hypothesis. This includes selecting the appropriate variables, creating a plan for manipulating and measuring them, and determining the appropriate control conditions.

Collect Data

Once the experiment is designed, students should collect data by following the procedures they have developed. They should record all data accurately and completely.

Analyze the Data

After collecting the data, students should analyze it to determine if their hypothesis was supported or not. They can use statistical analyses to determine if there are significant differences between groups or if there are correlations between variables.

Interpret the Results

Based on the analysis, students should interpret the results and draw conclusions about their hypothesis. They should consider the study’s limitations and their findings’ implications.

Report the Results

Finally, students should report the results of their study. This may include writing a research paper or presenting their findings in a poster or oral presentation.

Britt MA. Psych Experiments . Avon, MA: Adams Media; 2007.

Martin DW. Doing Psychology Experiments. Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning; 2008.

71 Self-presentation

[latexpage]

Learning Objectives

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

Describe social roles and how they influence behavior
Explain what social norms are and how they influence behavior
Define script
Describe the findings of Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment

SOCIAL ROLES

One major social determinant of human behavior is our social roles. A social role is a pattern of behavior that is expected of a person in a given setting or group (Hare, 2003). Each one of us has several social roles. You may be, at the same time, a student, a parent, an aspiring teacher, a son or daughter, a spouse, and a lifeguard. How do these social roles influence your behavior? Social roles are defined by culturally shared knowledge. That is, nearly everyone in a given culture knows what behavior is expected of a person in a given role. For example, what is the social role for a student? If you look around a college classroom you will likely see students engaging in studious behavior, taking notes, listening to the professor, reading the textbook, and sitting quietly at their desks ( [link] ). Of course you may see students deviating from the expected studious behavior such as texting on their phones or using Facebook on their laptops, but in all cases, the students that you observe are attending class—a part of the social role of students.

SOCIAL NORMS

My daughter replied, in typical 11-year-old fashion, “Mom, you are not funny. Can we please go shopping?”

I tried a different tactic. I asked Jessica if having clothing from that particular store will make her popular. She replied, “No, it will not make me popular. It is what the popular kids wear. It will make me feel happier.” How can a label or name brand make someone feel happier? Think back to what you’ve learned about lifespan development . What is it about pre-teens and young teens that make them want to fit in ( [link] )? Does this change over time? Think back to your high school experience, or look around your college campus. What is the main name brand clothing you see? What messages do we get from the media about how to fit in?

ZIMBARDO’S STANFORD PRISON EXPERIMENT

The famous Stanford prison experiment , conducted by social psychologist Philip Zimbardo and his colleagues at Stanford University, demonstrated the power of social roles, social norms, and scripts. In the summer of 1971, an advertisement was placed in a California newspaper asking for male volunteers to participate in a study about the psychological effects of prison life. More than 70 men volunteered, and these volunteers then underwent psychological testing to eliminate candidates who had underlying psychiatric issues, medical issues, or a history of crime or drug abuse. The pool of volunteers was whittled down to 24 healthy male college students. Each student was paid $15 per day and was randomly assigned to play the role of either a prisoner or a guard in the study. Based on what you have learned about research methods, why is it important that participants were randomly assigned?

A mock prison was constructed in the basement of the psychology building at Stanford. Participants assigned to play the role of prisoners were “arrested” at their homes by Palo Alto police officers, booked at a police station, and subsequently taken to the mock prison. The experiment was scheduled to run for several weeks. To the surprise of the researchers, both the “prisoners” and “guards” assumed their roles with zeal. In fact, on day 2, some of the prisoners revolted, and the guards quelled the rebellion by threatening the prisoners with night sticks. In a relatively short time, the guards came to harass the prisoners in an increasingly sadistic manner, through a complete lack of privacy, lack of basic comforts such as mattresses to sleep on, and through degrading chores and late-night counts.

At this point it became clear that we had to end the study. We had created an overwhelmingly powerful situation—a situation in which prisoners were withdrawing and behaving in pathological ways, and in which some of the guards were behaving sadistically. Even the “good” guards felt helpless to intervene, and none of the guards quit while the study was in progress. Indeed, it should be noted that no guard ever came late for his shift, called in sick, left early, or demanded extra pay for overtime work. (Zimbardo, 2013)

The Stanford prison experiment demonstrated the power of social roles, norms, and scripts in affecting human behavior. The guards and prisoners enacted their social roles by engaging in behaviors appropriate to the roles: The guards gave orders and the prisoners followed orders. Social norms require guards to be authoritarian and prisoners to be submissive. When prisoners rebelled, they violated these social norms, which led to upheaval. The specific acts engaged by the guards and the prisoners derived from scripts. For example, guards degraded the prisoners by forcing them do push-ups and by removing all privacy. Prisoners rebelled by throwing pillows and trashing their cells. Some prisoners became so immersed in their roles that they exhibited symptoms of mental breakdown; however, according to Zimbardo, none of the participants suffered long term harm (Alexander, 2001).

The Stanford Prison Experiment has some parallels with the abuse of prisoners of war by U.S. Army troops and CIA personnel at the Abu Ghraib prison in 2003 and 2004. The offenses at Abu Ghraib were documented by photographs of the abuse, some taken by the abusers themselves ( [link] ).

Visit this website to hear an NPR interview with Philip Zimbardo where he discusses the parallels between the Stanford prison experiment and the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

Human behavior is largely influenced by our social roles, norms, and scripts. In order to know how to act in a given situation, we have shared cultural knowledge of how to behave depending on our role in society. Social norms dictate the behavior that is appropriate or inappropriate for each role. Each social role has scripts that help humans learn the sequence of appropriate behaviors in a given setting. The famous Stanford prison experiment is an example of how the power of the situation can dictate the social roles, norms, and scripts we follow in a given situation, even if this behavior is contrary to our typical behavior.

Review Questions

A(n) ________ is a set of group expectations for appropriate thoughts and behaviors of its members.

social role
social norm
attribution

On his first day of soccer practice, Jose suits up in a t-shirt, shorts, and cleats and runs out to the field to join his teammates. Jose’s behavior is reflective of ________.

social influence
good athletic behavior
normative behavior

When it comes to buying clothes, teenagers often follow social norms; this is likely motivated by ________.

following parents’ rules
saving money
looking good

In the Stanford prison experiment, even the lead researcher succumbed to his role as a prison supervisor. This is an example of the power of ________ influencing behavior.

social norms
social roles

Critical Thinking Questions

Why didn’t the “good” guards in the Stanford prison experiment object to other guards’ abusive behavior? Were the student prisoners simply weak people? Why didn’t they object to being abused?

The good guards were fulfilling their social roles and they did not object to other guards’ abusive behavior because of the power of the situation. In addition, the prison supervisor’s behavior sanctioned the guards’ negative treatment of prisoners. The prisoners were not weak people; they were recruited because they were healthy, mentally stable adults. The power of their social role influenced them to engage in subservient prisoner behavior. The script for prisoners is to accept abusive behavior from authority figures, especially for punishment, when they do not follow the rules.

Describe how social roles, social norms, and scripts were evident in the Stanford prison experiment. How can this experiment be applied to everyday life? Are there any more recent examples where people started fulfilling a role and became abusive?

Social roles were in play as each participant acted out behaviors appropriate to his role as prisoner, guard, or supervisor. Scripts determined the specific behaviors the guards and prisoners displayed, such as humiliation and passivity. The social norms of a prison environment sanctions abuse of prisoners since they have lost many of their human rights and became the property of the government. This experiment can be applied to other situations in which social norms, roles, and scripts dictate our behavior, such as in mob behavior. A more recent example of similar behavior was the abuse of prisoners by American soldiers who were working as prison guards at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

Personal Application Questions

Try attending a religious service very different from your own and see how you feel and behave without knowing the appropriate script. Or, try attending an important, personal event that you have never attended before, such as a bar mitzvah (a coming-of-age ritual in Jewish culture), a quinceañera (in some Latin American cultures a party is given to a girl who is turning 15 years old), a wedding, a funeral, or a sporting event new to you, such as horse racing or bull riding. Observe and record your feelings and behaviors in this unfamiliar setting for which you lack the appropriate script. Do you silently observe the action, or do you ask another person for help interpreting the behaviors of people at the event? Describe in what ways your behavior would change if you were to attend a similar event in the future?

Name and describe at least three social roles you have adopted for yourself. Why did you adopt these roles? What are some roles that are expected of you, but that you try to resist?

Share This Book

Increase Font Size

Social Facilitation Theory In Psychology

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 facilitation is an improvement in the performance of a task in the presence of others (audience, competitor, co-actor) compared to their performance when alone.Typically, this results in improved performance on simple or well-practiced tasks and decreased performance on complex or unfamiliar tasks.

Take-home Messages

Social facilitation refers to the finding that people sometimes show an increased level of effort as a result of the real, imagined, or implied presence of others.
The concept was first identified by Norman Triplett in 1898 when he noticed that cyclists’ performance was facilitated (helped) when training as a group.
Psychologist Floyd Allport labeled it social facilitation in 1920.
There are two types of social facilitation: co-action effects and audience effects.
Subsequent researchers found that performance improved as a result of the presence of others (social facilitation), whilst others found that it was impaired (social inhibition).
Whether or not social facilitation occurs depends on the type of task: people tend to experience social facilitation when they are familiar with a task or for well-learned skills. However, social inhibition (decreased performance in the presence of others) occurs for difficult or novel tasks.

Co-action Effects

A co-action effect refers to a phenomenon whereby increased task performance comes about by the mere presence of others doing the same task. An example would be running a 100 meter sprint against someone.

The mere presence of others can enhance performance on simple or well-learned tasks but may hinder performance on complex or unfamiliar tasks. Co-action effects emphasize how parallel activity, rather than direct competition or cooperation, can impact individual behavior.

Perhaps the first social psychology laboratory experiment was undertaken in this area by Norman Triplett in 1898. In his research on the speed records of cyclists, he noticed that racing against each other rather than against the clock alone increased the cyclists’ speeds.

He attempted to duplicate this under laboratory conditions using children and fishing reels.

There were two conditions: the child alone and children in pairs but working alone. Their task was to wind in a given amount of fishing line, and Triplett reports that many children worked faster in the presence of a partner doing the same task. Triplett’s experiments demonstrate the co-action effect:

The co-action effect may come into operation if you work well in a library in preference to working at home where it is equally quiet (and so on).

Other co-action effect studies include Chen (1937), who observed that worker ants will dig more than three times as much sand per ant when working (non-co-operatively) alongside other ants than when working alone.

Platt, Yaksh, and Darby (1967) found that animals will eat more of their food if there are others of their species present.

Audience Effects

Social facilitation occurs not only in the presence of a co-actor but also in the presence of a passive spectator/audience. This is known as the audience effect.

Dashiell (1935) found that the presence of an audience facilitated subjects’ multiplication performance by increasing the number of simple multiplications completed.

An audience effect refers to a type of social facilitation in which an individual’s performance is influenced by the presence of others (an audience), which causes an individual’s dominant response to occur.

Travis (1925) found that well-trained subjects were better at a psychomotor task (pursuit rotor) in front of spectators. However, Pessin (1933) found an opposite audience effect, namely that subjects needed fewer trials at learning a list of nonsense words when on their own than when in front of an audience.

It seems, then, that the extent of social facilitation or inhibition depends upon the nature of the interaction between the task and the performer.

In some cases, the presence of co-actors/audience improved the quality of performance (Dashiell 1935), but in others, it impaired the quality (Pessin, 1933).

Social Loafing

However, there are instances where the presence of others has the opposite effect. That is, sometimes we don’t work as hard in the presence of others as we do when we are alone, especially if our behavior is not under surveillance. This phenomenon is known as social loafing .

Social loafing is a psychological phenomenon wherein individuals exert less effort when working on a collective task with others compared to when they work individually.

Essentially, as the group size increases, some individuals tend to “hide in the crowd” and let others carry the workload.

In larger groups, responsibility for the task is spread across many members. This diffusion can make individuals feel less personally accountable.

What sorts of behaviors are improved by the presence of others, and what sorts are impaired?

Whether or not social facilitation occurs depends on the type of task: people tend to experience it when they are familiar with a task or for well-learned skills.

However, social inhibition (decreased performance in the presence of others) occurs for difficult or novel tasks.

Underlying mechanisms through which the basic phenomenon of social facilitation operates, include:

Cognitive Factors (Distraction Conflict and Attention)

Distraction Conflict (Barron, 1986) theory of social facilitation suggests that rather than the mere presence of others, it is the conflict between giving attention to a person and giving attention to a task that affects performance.

This attention conflict motivates a person to pay more attention to the task and therefore will increase performance for simple well-learned tasks.

Affective Factors (Anxiety of Being Evaluated)

According to Cottrell (1968), it’s not the presence of other people that is important for social facilitation to occur but the apprehension about being evaluated by them.

We know that approval and disapproval are often dependent on others’ evaluations, and so the presence of others triggers an acquired arousal drive based on evaluation anxiety.

We are aroused by audiences because we have learned that they evaluate our performance; they are not merely passive spectators, we believe.

Such performance evaluation apprehension enhances drive/arousal

Physiological Factors (Drive and Arousal)

According to Zajonc, behavior that is either instinctive or very well-learned/ highly practiced is improved, whereas behavior that is novel or complex is impaired.

Zajonc’s (1966) fundamental claim is that “an audience impairs the acquisition of new responses and facilitates the emission of well learned responses”.

His crucial theoretical contribution was that the presence of others enhances the emission of dominant responses.

Zajonc’s explanation is based upon Clark Hull’s theory of motivation which states that a high level of arousal/drive will result in what is now called stress and will produce habitual behaviors (which are often incorrect).

The presence of others adds to arousal and, when combined with the arousal arising from a difficult or unfamiliar task, results in stress and consequent poor performance.

The extra arousal contributed by the presence of others takes us past our optimum level of arousal and results in the dominant response being something we can do easily, not something which is new or demanding. This is supported by the Yerkes-Dodson theory of optimal arousal .

A dominant response is simply the response that is most likely to occur in the presence of the given array of stimuli.

If a task is easy for the person, then the dominant response will be the correct one (i.e., most likely), and so the audience/co-actor helps elicit this. In a difficult task, the dominant response is the incorrect one(s) (i.e., the most likely again), and so the audience/co-actor helps elicit this.

Implications

Social facilitation has several implications for understanding behavior in group settings and structuring group tasks. Here are some of the key implications:

Performance Enhancement or Deterioration : Depending on the task’s complexity, the mere presence of others can either improve or hinder an individual’s performance. Simple tasks often see a boost in performance, while complex tasks might witness a decline.
Training and Skill Development : When training individuals or helping them practice a skill, having them first practice in isolation may be beneficial. Once the skill becomes more familiar, practicing before others can solidify the performance.
Workplace Productivity : Understanding social facilitation can aid in designing work environments. For instance, open-plan offices where everyone can observe each other might be good for routine tasks but not ideal for tasks requiring deep concentration and problem-solving.
Educational Settings : The dynamics of social facilitation might affect students differently. Some might perform better during tests if they’re in a room with others, while some might find it distracting.
Sports and Athletics : Athletes often perform better with an audience, leveraging the arousal from the presence of spectators to enhance their performance.

Baron, R. S. (1986). Distraction-conflict theory: Progress and problems. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 1-40). Academic Press.

Chen, S. C. (1937). The leaders and followers among the ants in nest-building. Physiological Zoology , 10(4), 437-455.

Cottrell, N. B., Wack, D. L., Sekerak, G. J., & Rittle, R. H. (1968). Social facilitation of dominant responses by the presence of an audience and the mere presence of others. Journal of personality and social psychology , 9(3), 245.

Dashiell, J. F. (1935). Experimental studies of the influence of social situations on the behavior of individual human adults .

Pessin, J. (1933). The comparative effects of social and mechanical stimulation on memorizing. The American Journal of Psychology , 45(2), 263-270.

PLATT, J. J., YAKSH, T., & DARBY, C. L. (1967). Social facilitation of eating behavior in armadillos. Psychological Reports , 20(3c), 1136-1136.

Travis, L. E. (1925). The effect of a small audience upon eye-hand coordination. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology , 20(2), 142.

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

Zajonc, R. B., & Sales, S. M. (1966). Social facilitation of dominant and subordinate responses . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2 (2), 160-168.

11+ Psychology Experiment Ideas (Goals + Methods)

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Are Some Classic Experiments?

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

The Marshmallow Test

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pavlov's Dogs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is Ethical Experimentation?

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

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

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

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

You can imagine how that made the children feel!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let's get into some ideas for experiments.

1) Testing Conformity

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

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

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

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

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

Real-World Impacts of Groupthink

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

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

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

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

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

2) Testing Color and Mood

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

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

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

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

Real-World Impacts of Color Psychology

Ever noticed how different places use colors?

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

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

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

3) Testing Music and Brainpower

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

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

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

Real-World Impacts of Music and Memory

Think about how we use music:

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

4) Testing Dreams and Food

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

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

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

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

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

Real-World Impacts of Food and Dreams

Our discoveries might shed light on:

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

5) Testing Mirrors and Self-image

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

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

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

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

Real-World Impacts of Mirrors and Self-perception

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

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

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

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

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

6) Testing Plants and Talking

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

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

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

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

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

Real-World Impacts of Talking to Plants

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

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

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

7) Testing Virtual Reality and Senses

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

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

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

Real-World Impacts of VR on Our Senses

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

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

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

8) Testing Sleep and Learning

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

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

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

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

Real-World Impacts of Sleep and Learning

Understanding the power of sleep can help:

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

9) Testing Social Media and Mood

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

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

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

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

Real-World Impacts of Social Media on Mood

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

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

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

10) Testing Handwriting or Typing

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

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

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

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

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

Real-World Impacts of Handwriting vs. Typing

Knowing the pros and cons of each method can:

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

11) Testing Money and Happiness

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

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

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

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

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

Real-World Impacts of Money and Happiness

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

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

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

12) Testing Temperature and Productivity

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

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

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

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

Real-World Implications of Temperature and Productivity

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

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

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

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

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

Reference this article:

About The Author

Free Personality Test

Free Memory Test

Free IQ Test

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

Youtube Facebook Instagram X/Twitter

Psychology Resources

Developmental

Personality

Relationships

Psychologists

Serial Killers

Psychology Tests

Personality Quiz

Memory Test

Depression test

Type A/B Personality Test

Newly Launched - AI Presentation Maker

AI PPT Maker

Powerpoint Templates

Icon Bundle

Kpi Dashboard

Professional

Business Plans

Swot Analysis

Gantt Chart

Business Proposal

Marketing Plan

Project Management

Business Case

Business Model

Cyber Security

Business PPT

Digital Marketing

Digital Transformation

Human Resources

Product Management

Artificial Intelligence

Company Profile

Acknowledgement PPT

PPT Presentation

Reports Brochures

One Page Pitch

Interview PPT

All Categories

Social psychology experiments ppt powerpoint presentation outline show

The following is a completely editable Medical Powerpoint Template Slide that discusses the topic Social Psychology Experiments. It is designed for medical professionals to discuss Social Psychology Experiments and can be completely customized to suit their needs. Add more items to this list and include this in your deck to impress your audience.

Add a user to your subscription for free

You must be logged in to download this presentation.

PowerPoint presentation slides

Presenting this set of slides with name Social Psychology Experiments Ppt Powerpoint Presentation Outline Show. The topics discussed in these slides are Social Psychology Experiments. This is a completely editable PowerPoint presentation and is available for immediate download. Download now and impress your audience.

People who downloaded this PowerPoint presentation also viewed the following :

Diagrams , Health , Medical , Flat Designs , Concepts and Shapes , Visuals and Illustrations
Social Psychology Experiments

Social psychology experiments ppt powerpoint presentation outline show with all 2 slides:

Give your audience a fulfilling experience. They will find our Social Psychology Experiments Ppt Powerpoint Presentation Outline Show elevating.

Ratings and Reviews

Bipolar Disorder
Therapy Center
When To See a Therapist
Types of Therapy
Best Online Therapy
Best Couples Therapy
Best Family 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

Ideas for Psychology Experiments

Inspiration for psychology experiments is all around if you know where to look

Psychology experiments can run the gamut from simple to complex. Students are often expected to design—and sometimes perform—their own experiments, but finding great experiment ideas can be a little challenging. Fortunately, inspiration is all around if you know where to look—from your textbooks to the questions that you have about your own life.

Always discuss your idea with your instructor before beginning your experiment—particularly if your research involves human participants. (Note: You'll probably need to submit a proposal and get approval from your school's institutional review board.)

At a Glance

If you are looking for an idea for psychology experiments, start your search early and make sure you have the time you need. Doing background research, choosing an experimental design, and actually performing your experiment can be quite the process. Keep reading to find some great psychology experiment ideas that can serve as inspiration. You can then find ways to adapt these ideas for your own assignments.

15 Ideas for Psychology Experiments

Most of these experiments can be performed easily at home or at school. That said, you will need to find out if you have to get approval from your teacher or from an institutional review board before getting started.

The following are some questions you could attempt to answer as part of a psychological experiment:

Are people really able to "feel like someone is watching" them ? Have some participants sit alone in a room and have them note when they feel as if they are being watched. Then, see how those results line up to your own record of when participants were actually being observed.
Can certain colors improve learning ? You may have heard teachers or students claim that printing text on green paper helps students read better, or that yellow paper helps students perform better on math exams. Design an experiment to see whether using a specific color of paper helps improve students' scores on math exams.
Can color cause physiological reactions ? Perform an experiment to determine whether certain colors cause a participant's blood pressure to rise or fall.
Can different types of music lead to different physiological responses ? Measure the heart rates of participants in response to various types of music to see if there is a difference.
Can smelling one thing while tasting another impact a person's ability to detect what the food really is ? Have participants engage in a blind taste test where the smell and the food they eat are mismatched. Ask the participants to identify the food they are trying and note how accurate their guesses are.
Could a person's taste in music offer hints about their personality ? Previous research has suggested that people who prefer certain styles of music tend to exhibit similar personality traits. Administer a personality assessment and survey participants about their musical preferences and examine your results.
Do action films cause people to eat more popcorn and candy during a movie ? Have one group of participants watch an action movie, and another group watch a slow-paced drama. Compare how much popcorn is consumed by each group.
Do colors really impact moods ? Investigate to see if the color blue makes people feel calm, or if the color red leaves them feeling agitated.
Do creative people see optical illusions differently than more analytical people ? Have participants complete an assessment to measure their level of creative thinking. Then ask participants to look at optical illusions and note what they perceive.
Do people rate individuals with perfectly symmetrical faces as more beautiful than those with asymmetrical faces ? Create sample cards with both symmetrical and asymmetrical faces and ask participants to rate the attractiveness of each picture.
Do people who use social media exhibit signs of addiction ? Have participants complete an assessment of their social media habits, then have them complete an addiction questionnaire.
Does eating breakfast help students do better in school ? According to some, eating breakfast can have a beneficial influence on school performance. For your experiment, you could compare the test scores of students who ate breakfast to those who did not.
Does sex influence short-term memory ? You could arrange an experiment that tests whether men or women are better at remembering specific types of information.
How likely are people to conform in groups ? Try this experiment to see what percentage of people are likely to conform . Enlist confederates to give the wrong response to a math problem and then see if the participants defy or conform to the rest of the group.
How much information can people store in short-term memory ? Have participants study a word list and then test their memory. Try different versions of the experiment to see which memorization strategies, like chunking or mnemonics, are most effective.

Once you have an idea, the next step is to learn more about how to conduct a psychology experiment .

Psychology Experiments on Your Interests

If none of the ideas in the list above grabbed your attention, there are other ways to find inspiration for your psychology experiments.

How do you come up with good psychology experiments? One of the most effective approaches is to look at the various problems, situations, and questions that you are facing in your own life.

You can also think about the things that interest you. Start by considering the topics you've studied in class thus far that have really piqued your interest. Then, whittle the list down to two or three major areas within psychology that seem to interest you the most.

From there, make a list of questions you have related to the topic. Any of these questions could potentially serve as an experiment idea.

Use Textbooks for Inspiration for Psychology Experiments

Your psychology textbooks are another excellent source you can turn to for experiment ideas. Choose the chapters or sections that you find particularly interesting—perhaps it's a chapter on social psychology or a section on child development.

Start by browsing the experiments discussed in your book. Then think of how you could devise an experiment related to some of the questions your text asks. The reference section at the back of your textbook can also serve as a great source for additional reference material.

Discuss Psychology Experiments with Other Students

It can be helpful to brainstorm with your classmates to gather outside ideas and perspectives. Get together with a group of students and make a list of interesting ideas, subjects, or questions you have.

The information from your brainstorming session can serve as a basis for your experiment topic. It's also a great way to get feedback on your own ideas and to determine if they are worth exploring in greater depth.

Study Classic Psychology Experiments

Taking a closer look at a classic psychology experiment can be an excellent way to trigger some unique and thoughtful ideas of your own. To start, you could try conducting your own version of a famous experiment or even updating a classic experiment to assess a slightly different question.

Famous Psychology Experiments

Examples of famous psychology experiments that might be a source of further questions you'd like to explore include:

Marshmallow test experiments
Little Albert experiment
Hawthorne effect experiments
Bystander effect experiments
Robbers Cave experiments
Halo effect experiments
Piano stairs experiment
Cognitive dissonance experiments
False memory experiments

You might not be able to replicate an experiment exactly (lots of classic psychology experiments have ethical issues that would preclude conducting them today), but you can use well-known studies as a basis for inspiration.

Review the Literature on Psychology Experiments

If you have a general idea about what topic you'd like to experiment, you might want to spend a little time doing a brief literature review before you start designing. In other words, do your homework before you invest too much time on an idea.

Visit your university library and find some of the best books and articles that cover the particular topic you are interested in. What research has already been done in this area? Are there any major questions that still need to be answered? What were the findings of previous psychology experiments?

Tackling this step early will make the later process of writing the introduction to your lab report or research paper much easier.

Ask Your Instructor About Ideas for Psychology Experiments

If you have made a good effort to come up with an idea on your own but you're still feeling stumped, it might help to talk to your instructor. Ask for pointers on finding a good experiment topic for the specific assignment. You can also ask them to suggest some other ways you could generate ideas or inspiration.

While it can feel intimidating to ask for help, your instructor should be more than happy to provide some guidance. Plus, they might offer insights that you wouldn't have gathered on your own. Your instructor probably has lots of ideas for psychology experiments that would be worth exploring.

If you need to design or conduct psychology experiments, there are plenty of great ideas (both old and new) for you to explore. Consider an idea from the list above or turn some of your own questions about the human mind and behavior into an experiment.

Before you dive in, make sure that you are observing the guidelines provided by your instructor and always obtain the appropriate permission before conducting any research with human or animal subjects.

Frequently Asked Questions

Finding a topic for a research paper is much like finding an idea for an experiment. Start by considering your own interests, or browse though your textbooks for inspiration. You might also consider looking at online news stories or journal articles as a source of inspiration.

Three of the most classic social psychology experiments are:

The Asch Conformity Experiment : This experiment involved seeing if people would conform to group pressure when rating the length of a line.
The Milgram Obedience Experiment : This experiment involved ordering participants to deliver what they thought was a painful shock to another person.
The Stanford Prison Experiment : This experiment involved students replicating a prison environment to see how it would affect participant behavior.

Jakovljević T, Janković MM, Savić AM, et al. The effect of colour on reading performance in children, measured by a sensor hub: From the perspective of gender . PLoS One . 2021;16(6):e0252622. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0252622

Greenberg DM, et al. Musical preferences are linked to cognitive styles . PLoS One. 2015;10(7). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0131151

Kurt S, Osueke KK. The effects of color on the moods of college students . Sage. 2014;4(1). doi:10.1177/2158244014525423

Hartline-Grafton H, Levin M. Breakfast and School-Related Outcomes in Children and Adolescents in the US: A Literature Review and its Implications for School Nutrition Policy . Curr Nutr Rep . 2022;11(4):653-664. doi:10.1007/s13668-022-00434-z

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

Preferences

Famous Psychology Experiments - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Famous Psychology Experiments

Operationalization: to put an experiment into a form that ... experimenting, recording results, conclusion. recording the results. conducting the experiment ... – powerpoint ppt presentation.

Scientific method
Hypothesis formulation
Operationalization to put an experiment into a form that allows researchers to test the hypothesis
Independent variable the variable that researchers control
Dependent variable the variable that researchers are studying
What other questions should the researchers ask?
Confounding variables
Reliability
Recording the results
Correlation versus causation just because two things are related doesnt mean one thing caused the other
Replication
Theory development
Is it right to experiment on people?
What limits should there be?
Is it right to experiment on animals?

PowerShow.com is a leading presentation sharing website. It has millions of presentations already uploaded and available with 1,000s more being uploaded by its users every day. Whatever your area of interest, here you’ll be able to find and view presentations you’ll love and possibly download. And, best of all, it is completely free and easy to use.

You might even have a presentation you’d like to share with others. If so, just upload it to PowerShow.com. We’ll convert it to an HTML5 slideshow that includes all the media types you’ve already added: audio, video, music, pictures, animations and transition effects. Then you can share it with your target audience as well as PowerShow.com’s millions of monthly visitors. And, again, it’s all free.

About the Developers

PowerShow.com is brought to you by CrystalGraphics , the award-winning developer and market-leading publisher of rich-media enhancement products for presentations. Our product offerings include millions of PowerPoint templates, diagrams, animated 3D characters and more.

World's Best PowerPoint Templates PowerPoint PPT Presentation

IMAGES

Social Psychology Experiments Ppt Powerpoint Presentation Outline Show
PPT
Social Psychology Experiments Ppt Powerpoint Presentation Infographic
Famous Social Psychology Experiments by Michael Lay
PPT
PPT

VIDEO

Social Psychology Part 1: The Power of Situation and Framing
Methods of Social Psychology (Experiment Method)
What is Social Psychology? An Introduction
Field Experiments
What is Social Psychology? Major Theories and Ideas
Week 1: Introduction to Social Psychology (Part 1)

COMMENTS

Social Psychology Experiments: 10 Of The Most Brilliant Studies
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.
Social Psychology
Social Psychology- the scientific study of how we think about, influence and relate to one another ... In 1968 school teacher Jane Elliott performed a now famous social psychology experiment on her all white 3rd grade class in an effort to educate them about prejudice and discrimination following the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr ...
Famous Social Psychology Experiments
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 ...
9 Of The Most Influential Social Psychology Experiments In History
Overview. The Milgram Experiment was a famous social psychology experiment and experiment conducted by Stanley Milgram in the 1960s. Its aim was to test people's obedience to authority. The study examined how far people would go when an authority figure instructed them to perform acts that conflicted with their morals.
Social Experiments and Studies in Psychology
A social experiment is a type of research performed in psychology to investigate how people respond in certain social situations. In many of these experiments, the experimenters will include confederates who are people who act like regular participants but who are actually acting the part. Such experiments are often used to gain insight into ...
Ch 9: Social Psychology
Social Psychology and Self-Presentation. Social psychology is the study of how people affect one another's thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. In this section, you'll learn about how our attitudes about others and our perception of our self can be deceiving. ... One famous experiment known for studying the ways that people adopt social roles ...
Social Psychology Research Topics
Choose a Sub-Topic. Social psychologists are interested in all aspects of social behavior. Some of the main areas of interest within the field include social cognition, social influence, and social relationships investigating subtopics such as conformity, groupthink, attitude formation, obedience, prejudice, and so on.
Social Psychology Teaching Resources
Listed below are links to a variety of social psychology teaching resources, including textbooks, course syllabi, lecture notes, classroom activities, demonstrations, assignments, and more. The following table shows a detailed outline of topics. For information on the SPN Action Teaching Award, please visit the teaching award page.
Social Psychology: Definition, Theories, Scope, & Examples
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.
Social Psychology Experiments
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.
The 25 Most Influential Psychological Experiments in History
3. Bobo Doll Experiment Study Conducted by: Dr. Alburt Bandura. Study Conducted between 1961-1963 at Stanford University . Experiment Details: During the early 1960s a great debate began regarding the ways in which genetics, environmental factors, and social learning shaped a child's development. This debate still lingers and is commonly referred to as the Nature vs. Nurture Debate.
8 Effective Social Psychology Experiments & Activities For High School
Here are a few interesting experiments and activities for high school students to learn about social psychology : 1. Bystander effect simulation. The bystander effect [ 1] is a social psychology phenomenon that studies how an individual is unlikely to help in an urgent situation if surrounded by other people. Students can conduct experiments to ...
12.2 Self-presentation
12.1 What Is Social Psychology? 12.2 Self-presentation; 12.3 Attitudes and Persuasion; 12.4 Conformity, Compliance, ... social psychology is the study of how people affect one another's thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. ... The famous Stanford prison experiment, conducted by social psychologist Philip Zimbardo and his colleagues at Stanford ...
PDF Field experimentation Methods for Social Psychology
10% Research proposal presentation R Script Homework 1 and 2 Both homework scripts will entail analyzing and providing visualizations of a real dataset from a social psychology field experiment. Sample R scripts will be provided and reviewed prior to the posting of these homework assignments.
Principles of Social Psychology
The presentation is organized around two underlying principles that are essential to social psychology: ... To help students better grasp the big picture of social psychology, and to provide you with a theme that you can use to organize your lectures, Unnamed Author's text has a consistent pedagogy across the chapters. ...
Psychology Experiment Ideas
Find great psychology experiment ideas that you can use for your psychology classes. Explore ideas for experiments and advice on where to find good experiments. ... Social Media and Mental Health. ... This may include writing a research paper or presenting their findings in a poster or oral presentation. Sources: Britt MA. Psych Experiments ...
Self-presentation
One major social determinant of human behavior is our social roles. A social role is a pattern of behavior that is expected of a person in a given setting or group (Hare, 2003). Each one of us has several social roles. You may be, at the same time, a student, a parent, an aspiring teacher, a son or daughter, a spouse, and a lifeguard.
The 9 Major Research Areas in Social Psychology
Research in social psychology is often focused on subjects that fall within three broad areas: Social influence: Social influence refers to the ways in which our opinions and behavior are affected by the presence of others. This includes studies on topics such as conformity, obedience, and social pressure. Social perception: Social perception ...
Social Facilitation Theory In Psychology
Take-home Messages. Social facilitation refers to the finding that people sometimes show an increased level of effort as a result of the real, imagined, or implied presence of others. The concept was first identified by Norman Triplett in 1898 when he noticed that cyclists' performance was facilitated (helped) when training as a group.
11+ Psychology Experiment Ideas (Goals + Methods)
The Marshmallow Test. One of the most talked-about experiments of the 20th century was the Marshmallow Test, conducted by Walter Mischel in the late 1960s at Stanford University.. The goal was simple but profound: to understand a child's ability to delay gratification and exercise self-control.. Children were placed in a room with a marshmallow and given a choice: eat the marshmallow now or ...
Social Psychology Experiments Ppt Powerpoint Presentation Outline Show
PowerPoint presentation slides: Presenting this set of slides with name Social Psychology Experiments Ppt Powerpoint Presentation Outline Show. The topics discussed in these slides are Social Psychology Experiments. This is a completely editable PowerPoint presentation and is available for immediate download. Download now and impress your audience.
Great Ideas for Psychology Experiments to Explore
Piano stairs experiment. Cognitive dissonanceexperiments. False memoryexperiments. You might not be able to replicatean experiment exactly (lots of classic psychology experiments have ethical issues that would preclude conducting them today), but you can use well-known studies as a basis for inspiration.
Famous Psychology Experiments
Social Psychology - Title: Slide 1 Author: leonesio Last modified by: Ken Farshtey Created Date: 10/23/2004 11:21:39 PM Document presentation format: On-screen Show (4:3) ... The PowerPoint PPT presentation: "Famous Psychology Experiments" is the property of its rightful owner.

Social Psychology Experiments: 10 Of The Most Famous Studies

1. Social Psychology Experiments: The Halo Effect

2. Cognitive Dissonance

3. Robbers Cave Experiment: How Group Conflicts Develop

4. Social Psychology Experiments: The Stanford Prison Experiment

5. The Milgram Social Psychology Experiment

6. The False Consensus Effect

7. Social Psychology Experiments: Social Identity Theory

8. Negotiation: 2 Psychological Strategies That Matter Most

9. Bystander Effect And The Diffusion Of Responsibility

10. Asch Conformity Experiment: The Power Of Social Pressure

Author: Dr Jeremy Dean

9 of the Most Influential Social Psychology Experiments in History

The Stanford Prison Experiment, 1971

1.2. Results

1.3. Criticisms

The Asch Conformity Experiment, 1951

2.2. Results

2.3. Criticisms

The Bobo Doll Experiment, 1961

3.2. Results

3.3. Criticisms

The Milgram Experiment, 1963

4.2. Results

4.3. Criticisms

The Halo Effect Experiment, 1977

5.2. Results

5.3. Criticisms

The False Consensus Effect Experiment, 1974

6.2. Results

6.3. Criticisms

The Chameleon Effect Experiment, 1990

7.2. Results

7.3. Criticisms

The Diffusion of Responsibility Experiment, 1968

8.2. Results

8.3. Criticisms

The Cognitive Dissonance Experiment, 1957

Frequently Asked Questions

Why are experiments are used in social psychology?

What are social psychology topics?

What is an example of a social experiment?

What was the social experiment of the 60s?

Leave a Comment Cancel

Ch 9: Social Psychology

Social Psychology and Self-Presentation

Learning Objectives

Social Psychology and Influences on Behavior

Situational and Dispositional Influences on Behavior

Fundamental Attribution Error

Is the Fundamental Attribution Error a Universal Phenomenon?

Actor-Observer Bias

Self-Serving Bias

Just-World Hypothesis

Think It Over

Social Norms and Scripts

Social Norms

Everyday Connections: Tweens, Teens, and Social Norms

Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment

Attitudes and Persuasion

What is Cognitive Dissonance?

Effect of Initiation

Yale Attitude Change Approach

Elaboration Likelihood Model

Foot-in-the-door Technique

Link to Learning

Stanley Milgram’s Experiment

Link to learning

Dig Deeper: Groupthink in the U.S. Government

Group Polarization

Social Facilitation

Social Loafing

The Bystander Effect and Altruism

When Do People Help?

Defining the Situation: The Role of Pluralistic Ignorance

Do I Have to be the One to Help?: Diffusion of Responsibility

The Costs and Rewards of Helping

Evolutionary Roots for Prosocial Behavior

Egoistic Motivation for Helping

Altruistic Help