Social Psychology Experiments PDF

​ Norman Triplett’s bicycle racing observation (1898): This was one of the first social psychology experiments. Triplett noticed that cyclists' times were faster when racing together than when racing alone against the clock. He then conducted an experiment with children winding string...

​ Norman Triplett’s bicycle racing observation (1898): This was one of the first social psychology experiments. Triplett noticed that cyclists' times were faster when racing together than when racing alone against the clock. He then conducted an experiment with children winding string on a fishing reel and found that they wound faster when they worked with co-actors than when they worked alone. ​ Floyd Allport’s experiment (1920): This study found that the presence of others improves the speed with which people do simple multiplication problems and cross out designated letters. ​ Dashiell's experiment (1930): This study found that the presence of others improves the accuracy with which people perform simple motor tasks. ​ Travis's experiment (1925): This study also found that the presence of others improves the accuracy with which people perform simple motor tasks. ​ Bayer’s ant experiment (1929): This study found that ants excavate more sand in the presence of other ants. ​ Chen's chicken experiment (1937): This study found that chickens eat more grain in the presence of other chickens. ​ Larsson’s rat experiment (1956): This study found that sexually active rat pairs mate more often in the presence of other rats. ​ Garcia-Marques et al. experiment (2015): This study found that the presence of others makes us better at recognizing faces. ​ Liu & Yu experiment (2018): This study found that simply knowing you are in an online group enhances performance on simple tasks. ​ Allee & Masure's cockroach experiment (1936): This study found that cockroaches learn mazes more slowly in the presence of other cockroaches. ​ Gates & Allee’s parakeet experiment (1933): This study found that parakeets learn mazes more slowly in the presence of other parakeets. ​ Klopfer’s green finch experiment (1958): This study found that green finches learn mazes more slowly in the presence of other green finches. ​ Dashiell's nonsense syllables experiment (1930): This study found that the presence of others diminishes efficiency at learning nonsense syllables. ​ Pessin’s maze experiment (1933): This study found that the presence of others diminishes efficiency at completing a maze. ​ Pessin & Husband’s multiplication experiment (1933): This study found that the presence of others diminishes efficiency at performing complex multiplication problems. ​ Hills et al. experiment (2019): This study found that we can be worse at learning new faces in the presence of others. ​ Hunt & Hillery’s maze experiment (1973): This study found that in the presence of others, students took less time to learn a simple maze and more time to learn a complex one. ​ Michaels et al.’s pool experiment (1982): This study found that good pool players did even better when four observers came up to watch them play, while poor shooters did even worse when closely observed. ​ Rosenbloom et al.’s driving experiment (2007): This study found that novice drivers more often fail driving tests when tested with another to-be-tested person in the car rather than alone. ​ Cottrell et al.’s nonsense syllable experiment (1968): This study tested for evaluation apprehension. The researchers blindfolded observers to see if their mere presence would boost well-practiced responses. They found that it did not. ​ Worringham & Messick’s jogging experiment (1983): This study found that joggers on a jogging path sped up as they came upon a woman seated on the grass—if she was facing them rather than sitting with her back turned. This suggests that we are more likely to be affected by the presence of others when we believe they are evaluating us. ​ Mullen & Baumeister’s basketball experiment (1987): This study found that self-conscious basketball players are more likely to miss free throws if they analyze their body movements while shooting. This suggests that self-consciousness can interfere with behaviors that we perform best automatically. ​ Ringelmann’s tug-of-war experiment (reported by Kravitz & Martin, 1986): This study found that the collective effort of tug-of-war teams was half the sum of the individual efforts. ​ Ingham et al.’s rope-pulling experiment (1974): In this experiment, participants were blindfolded and led to believe that others were pulling a rope with them, when in fact they were pulling alone. The participants pulled 18% harder when they knew they were pulling alone than when they believed that behind them two to five people were also pulling. ​ Lichacz’s rope-pulling replication (1996): This study replicated Ringelmann’s original study and found that giving feedback to the participants on their performance was effective at increasing their individual efforts. The study also found that if people had experience with the task, they exerted a greater effort than if the task was a novel one for them. ​ Latané, Williams, & Harkins’s shouting and clapping experiment (1979): In this experiment, participants were blindfolded and led to believe that others were shouting or clapping with them, when in fact they were doing so alone. When the participants believed five others were also either shouting or clapping, they produced one-third less noise than when they thought they were alone. ​ Hardy & Latané’s shouting and clapping experiment (1986): This study replicated Latané, Williams, & Harkins’s experiment and found the same results. ​ Sweeney’s bicycle experiment (1973): This study found that students pumped exercise bicycles more energetically when they knew they were being individually monitored than when they thought their output was being pooled with that of other riders. ​ Gabrenya et al.’s cross-cultural experiment (1985): This study repeated Latané, Williams, & Harkins’s experiment in Japan, Thailand, Taiwan, India, and Malaysia. The researchers found that social loafing was evident in all of those countries. ​ Zimbardo’s electric shock experiment (1970): This study found that anonymous women dressed in KKK-like robes delivered longer electric shocks to helpless victims than did identifiable women. ​ Diener & Wallbom’s Halloween experiment (1976): This study observed children trick-or-treating and found that, compared to solo children, those in groups were more than twice as likely to take extra candy. Also, compared to children who had been asked their names and where they lived, those left anonymous were also more than twice as likely to transgress. ​ Watson’s anthropological analysis (1973): This study scrutinized anthropological files and discovered that the cultures with depersonalized warriors were also the cultures that brutalized the enemy. ​ Johnson & Downing’s electric shock experiment (1979): This experiment had women put on nurses’ uniforms before deciding how much shock someone should receive. When those wearing the nurses’ uniforms were made anonymous, they became less aggressive in administering shocks than when their names and personal identities were stressed. ​ Frank & Gilovich’s hockey and football analysis (1988): This study reported that black-uniformed teams consistently ranked near the top of the National Football and Hockey Leagues in penalties assessed between 1970 and 1986. ​ Stoner’s risk-taking experiment (1961): This study compared risk-taking by individuals and groups. Participants were asked to advise an imagined character how much risk to take. The study found that groups made riskier decisions than individuals. ​ Moscovici & Zavalloni’s French student experiment (1969): This study found that discussion enhanced French students’ initially positive attitude toward their president and negative attitude toward Americans. ​ Isozaki’s Japanese student experiment (1984): This study found that Japanese university students gave more pronounced “guilty” judgments after discussing a traffic case. ​ Brauer et al.’s French student experiment (2001): This study found that French students’ dislike for certain other people was exacerbated after discussing their shared negative impressions. ​ Whyte’s business student experiment (1993): This study found that groups exacerbate the “too much invested to quit” phenomenon that has cost many businesses (and gamblers) huge sums of money. ​ Myers & Bishop’s high school student experiment (1970): This study set up groups of relatively prejudiced and unprejudiced high school students and asked them to respond to issues involving racial attitudes. The study found that discussions among like-minded students increased the initial gap between the two groups. ​ Bekafigo et al. experiment (2019): This study replicated Myers & Bishop’s study and found the same results. ​ Myers’s risk-taking experiment (1978): This study found that merely being exposed to others’ judgments enhanced individuals’ risk-prone tendencies on “risky” dilemma items and enhanced their cautiousness on “cautious” dilemma items. ​ Salganik et al.’s music download experiment (2006): This experiment had Internet participants listen to and download previously unknown songs. The researchers found that popular songs became more popular and unpopular songs became less popular among participants who were told about previous participants’ download choices. ​ Moscovici et al.’s blue slide experiment (1969): This study found that if a minority consistently judges blue slides as green, members of the majority will occasionally agree. However, if the minority wavers, saying “blue” to one-third of the blue slides and “green” to the rest, virtually no one in the majority will ever agree with “green.” ​ Kalven & Zeisel’s jury study (1966): This study found that juries are subject to the same social influences that mould other decision groups. In about two out of three cases, the jurors will initially not agree on a verdict. Yet, after discussion, 95% emerge with a consensus. ​ Davis et al.’s mock jury experiments (1975, 1977, 1989): These studies found that the mathematical scheme that best predicts a jury’s decision varies according to the nature of the case. However, in several experiments, a “two-thirds-majority” scheme fared best: The group verdict was usually the alternative favored by at least two-thirds of the jurors at the outset. Without such a majority, a hung jury was likely. ​ Kerr et al.’s mock jury experiments (1976): These studies supported the findings of Davis et al. ​ Hastie, Penrod, & Pennington’s mock jury experiment (1983): This study presented 69 mock juries with a re-enactment of an actual murder case and found that group polarization can occur in juries. After deliberation, nearly all of the jurors agreed that the accused was guilty, and most preferred a stronger verdict than they had before deliberation. ​ MacCoun & Kerr’s mock jury experiments (1988): These studies found that deliberating jurors often become more lenient. ​ Stasser et al.’s mock jury experiment (1981): This study found that if even a bare majority initially favors acquittal, it usually will prevail. ​ Tindale et al.’s mock jury experiment (1990): This study found that a minority that favors acquittal stands a better chance of prevailing than one that favors conviction. ​ Milgram’s obedience studies (1963; 1974): These studies investigated obedience to authority. In the original study, 65% of participants delivered the full 450-volt shock to the learner, even though they believed the learner was in pain. Milgram conducted several variations of this study, manipulating factors such as the proximity of the learner and the experimenter. [24-28] ​ Blascovich, Mendes, Hunter, & Salomon’s learning experiment (1999): This study demonstrated a social facilitation effect on a learning task. Compared to those learning the task alone, those learning the task in front of an audience made significantly more mistakes. ​ Diener & Beaman's Halloween experiment (1976): This field experiment examined the effects of deindividuation on children's behavior. Children were more likely to take extra candy when they were in a group and anonymous. ​ Stasser & Titus’s hiring experiment (1985, 1987): This study demonstrated the common knowledge effect. Groups of participants had to decide which of two job candidates to hire. Each participant was given different information about the candidates. The groups tended to focus on the information that was shared by all members, even if that information was not the most important. ​ Miller, Berg, & Archer’s disclosure experiment (1983): This study examined the effects of self-disclosure on liking. Participants were paired up and asked to disclose personal information to each other. The study found that people who disclosed more intimate information were liked more. ​ Deaux’s attachment style experiment (2007): This experiment examined the effects of attachment style on social acceptance. Participants were pre-measured on attachment style and then informed that they were taking part in a study on “social interaction in chat rooms.” In the first part of the study, participants completed a personality survey and information exchange questionnaire that would be shared among the other participants. They were then asked to rank their preferences for interacting with each of the other participants in the next phase of the study. The study found that people with a secure attachment style were more likely to be ranked highly by other participants. [33, 34] ​ Aron et al.’s self-expansion experiment: This series of studies examined the link between self-expansion and relationship satisfaction. ​ Uleman & Blader’s college application experiment: This study examined the effects of implicit bias on decision-making. Participants were asked to evaluate college applications  that varied in the applicant’s race, high school GPA, and performance on a standardized university entrance exam. [36, 37] ​ Elms & Milgram’s authoritarianism study: This study examined the relationship between authoritarianism and obedience. Participants were asked to describe their reactions to the Milgram experiment. Participants who scored high on authoritarianism were less likely to blame the experimenter than were most other participants. Instead, they blamed the person who was ordered to deliver the shocks and the victim more than other participants. ​ Jacobs & Eccles’s gender stereotype study (1992): This study examined the influence of mothers' endorsement of gendered stereotypes on their child’s self-perception of their own ability in math, sports, and social situations. ​ Steele & Aronson’s stereotype threat study: This study examined the effects of stereotype threat on the performance of African-American students on standardized IQ tests. ​ Stone, Lynch, Sjomeling, & Darley’s hypocrisy-induction experiment: This study examined the effects of hypocrisy induction on prejudice. Participants were asked to write a persuasive essay on why they believe it’s important to treat minority Asian students on campus fairly. Then, participants in the hypocrisy-induction condition were asked to think of situations where they had not treated a member of the minority group fairly. ​ Forest, Kille, Wood, & Stehouwer’s physical instability experiment (2015): This study examined the link between physical sensations and cognitions. Participants who experienced physical instability reported lower relationship quality and satisfaction, commitment, and stability. ​ Dunning & Kruger’s Dunning-Kruger effect experiment (1999): This study found that people who are unskilled in an area tend to overestimate their understanding and skill. ​ Kennedy, Anderson, & Moore’s competence experiment (2013): This study found that even when an individual's overconfidence is revealed, group members still view that individual in a positive light. ​ Weiner & Kukla’s simulated teaching experiment (1970): This study found that the attributions we make for an outcome can impact our psychological and behavioral response to others. ​ Graham’s emotion and attribution study: This study examined the cognitive consequences of affective cues. [45-48] ​ Blackwell, Trzesniewski, & Dweck’s theory of intelligence experiment (2007): This longitudinal study followed four cohorts of students (grade 7 to 8) and measured their attributions for their theory of intelligence. The study found that students who believed intelligence is malleable (incremental theory) performed better academically than those who believed intelligence is fixed (entity theory). [49, 50] ​ Schütz’s marital conflict study (1999): This study found that married couples are more likely to blame their partner for marital conflicts than themselves. ​ Phelps et al.’s implicit racism study (2002): This study found that white American participants exhibited a negative unconscious anti-black/pro-white bias on an implicit measure of racism, even though they consciously expressed non-racist beliefs on an explicit measure. ​ Wilson, Dunn, Kraft, & Lisle’s relationship study: This study examined the effects of introspection on attitudes. Participants who were asked to introspect about their relationship were less likely to be accurate in their predictions about the future of the relationship. [53, 54] ​ Dickerson, Thibodeau, Aronson, & Miller’s water conservation study: This study examined the effects of hypocrisy induction on behavior. Participants who were induced to feel hypocritical about their water conservation habits were more likely to conserve water in the future. ​ Lepper, Greene, & Nisbett’s drawing experiment: This study examined the effects of rewards on intrinsic motivation. ​ Haney, Banks, & Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment (1973): This infamous study demonstrated the power of social roles. Participants who were randomly assigned to be prison guards became abusive, while those assigned to be prisoners became passive and withdrawn. ​ Langer, Blank, & Chanowitz’s language of request experiment (1978; 1985): This study found that using language associated with reason can increase compliance. ​ Petty, Cacioppo, & Goldman’s personal relevance experiment (1981): This study tested the effects of personal relevance on motivation to process message information. Participants were more persuaded by strong arguments when the issue was personally relevant to them. ​ Petty & Cacioppo’s message length experiment (1984): This study found that long messages are more persuasive than short messages when they are processed centrally. ​ Cialdini, Reno, & Kallgren’s littering experiment (1990): This study found that people are more likely to litter in a littered environment than in a clean environment. ​ Sherif’s autokinetic effect experiment (1936): This classic study demonstrated the power of social norms. Participants were asked to judge the movement of a point of light in a dark room. When they were tested alone, their estimates varied widely. However, when they were tested in groups, their estimates converged on a common norm. ​ Bargh, Chen, & Burrows’s priming experiment (1996): This study demonstrated the effects of priming on behavior. Participants who were primed with words related to rudeness were more likely to interrupt a conversation. [63-65] ​ Stopa & Clark’s social anxiety experiment: This study examined the social scripts of people with social anxiety. ​ Schwarz, Bless, Strack, Klumpp, Ritenauer-Schatka, & Simons’s assertiveness study (1991): This study demonstrated the availability heuristic. Participants who were asked to recall more examples of their own assertiveness rated themselves as more assertive. ​ Fischhoff & Bar-Hillel’s base rate fallacy study (1984): This study demonstrated the base rate fallacy. Participants ignored base rate information when making judgments about the likelihood of an event. ​ Rosenthal & Jacobsen’s “intellectual blooming” experiment (1966): This study demonstrated the self-fulfilling prophecy. Teachers who were led to believe that certain students were “intellectual bloomers” treated those students differently, leading to those students actually performing better on IQ tests. [69, 70]