1. The Little Albert
Experiment
John
B. Watson carried out an experiment at John Hopkins University in 1920 to study
the phenomenon of psychological conditioning. Accordingly, in order to carry
out the process, Watson tested on a 9-month-old subject, baby Albert, who was
provoked to associate frightening sounds with the presence of a white rat that
he initially admired. The constant manifestation of the horrid sound evoked a
sentiment of fear for the presence of the rat and thus allow for Watson to
deduce that phobias are most likely conditioned responses.
2. Asch conformity
Experiments
This
experiment, carried out at Swarthmore College in 1951, examined the behavior
under the pressure of social forces. In the experiment, participants were asked
to determine the length of certain lines and align them with another like.
Subsequently, only one participant amongst a group was a subject and the aim
was to determine whether he would conform to the wrong answers generated by the
other members of the group. Sometimes we go along with the decision of the
group because we convince ourselves that we are right, which is termed as
informational conformity. But sometimes we conform because we are apprehensive
that the group will disapprove if we are deviant. This is called normative conformity.
This particular experiment reveals how people will deny what they see and
submit to group pressure. It not only allowed for us to study conformity but
also to examine the factors that allow it to increase and decrease accordingly.
3. The Bystander
effect
This
experiment was conducted at Columbia University to essentially determine the
difference in reaction times to certain emergencies in regards to sole
individuals as compared to people in groups. It was found that people were more
likely to act faster if they were to witness an unusual occurrence when by
themselves as opposed to when they were with other people, as they tended to
rely on others to react first.
4. The Milgram
experiment
Psychologist Stanley
Milgram of Yale University carried out this experiment in order to further
understand the nature of those who committed atrocities of the Holocaust.
Accordingly, the subjects were given the power to administer increasing voltage
shocks to "students" who did not respond correctly to questions that
they were asked to pose as their "teachers.” Accordingly, it was found
that under the pressure of an authoritative figure majority of those involved
in the experiment were willing to administer the most fatal voltage shock as a
means of submitting to the authoritative figure which suggests that perhaps
those directly involved in the Holocaust acted against their conscience and
were in a sense forced to follow through with the demands of the authoritative
figures at the time.
5. Harlow's monkey
experiments
Harlow, through his
experiment, observed the notion of infant dependency as he replaced the real
mother of a baby monkey with two new mothers— a nursing wire mother, and a
cloth mother. Accordingly, Harlow sought to observe which "mother"
the baby monkey would seek contact comfort in and the results were indicative
of the cloth mother holding a superior position to the wire mother in this
case. Moreover, Harlow also introduces a source of intimidation to frighten the
baby monkey and again drew out the same results whereby the monkey seemed to be
comforted by the cloth mother in contrast to the wired mother.
6. Learned helplessness
In
1965, Martin Seligman and his team, as a means of understanding perceive control,
used dogs as subjects in their experiment. Accordingly, the premise of the
experiment consisted of observing how dogs would learn to dodge administered
shocks by jumping hurdles. Nevertheless, after learning to avoid the shocks,
the dogs were harnessed and randomly administered unavoidable shocks.
Accordingly, when the same dogs were placed in a box the next day, they did not
even try to avoid the shocks which could have easily been dodged which
corresponds to learned helplessness as they were psychologically stuck in the
unavoidable administered shocks sphere.
7. Robbers cave experiment
In the
summer of 1954, Muzafer Sherif carried out this experiment in order to learn
about group dynamics in the face of conflict. Subsequently, a group of
adolescent boys were brought into a simulated summer camp environment and the group
was split into two. The groups would only encounter each other when involved in
competitive activities. However, the psychologists then administered situations
whereby the groups were required to work in union to accomplish the larger goal
and this experiment revealed how the groups united as one in the face of a
conflict despite initial disparaging group dynamics.
8. The monster study
Through this experiment, Wendell Johnson endeavored to determine the cause of
stuttering at University of Iowa in 1939. He did so by attempting to turn
orphans into stutterers. Nevertheless, at the end of his experiment, as a part
of which half of a 22 children group received positive teaching whereas the
other negative rebukes, none of the orphans became stutterers. Nonetheless, the
children who were exposed to negative rebukes undeniably displayed signs of low
self-esteem, which is a common characteristic in stutterers.
9. Blue eyed versus brown-eyed
students
Jane Elliott, through her
experiment in 1968, aimed to acquaint her elementary school students with first
hand experience of discrimination. Subsequently, she divided the class into two
groups: blue eyed vs. brown-eyed students. Moreover, one group was legitimized
as superior to the other and was even treated in that manner to authenticate
the experience. Furthermore, the roles were reversed halfway through so that
each individual could experience the same prejudices.
10. The Stanford prison
experiment
In the
Stanford prison experiment, psychologist Philip Zimbardo wanted to understand
the dynamics of group behavior and the superficial power that was outlined by
certain authorities. In order to explore this relationship, Zimbardo simulated
a prison in Stanford University and essentially designated randomly the roles
of officer/guard and prisoner to the participants in the subject. It was noted
that with the label of the guard was entailed a sense of formidable authority
that brought about great brutality that was endured by the prisoners as the
inferior race in the environment. Thus, through this experiment, Zimbardo
revealed how the external circumstances than an individual is immersed in
heavily influences his or her actions.
QUESTIONS:
Reason
Can we assume that human beings are rational animals?
No we cannot assume that human beings are rational animals as
rationality often becomes blurred when an individual is exposed to perturbing
environments that may provoke them to defy their conscience and act differently
to what they may normally.
Emotion
How can a social scientist avoid becoming emotionally involved?
For a social scientist to avoid becoming emotionally involved, he
or she must primarily not be engaged as a participant in the experiment being carried out. Furthermore, the participants
involved should not be in close associations with the social scientist to increase the probability of diminished
emotional investment.
Ethics
How do ethical factors limit
experiments?
Ethical
factors in contemporary times limit experiments as the nature of an
experiment need be cleared as ethical for a social scientist to proceed with
it. Furthermore, the limiting aspect comes in when considering the fact that
there is so much knowledge that can be extracted if ethical boundaries were not
imposed on experiments. For instance, the manner an individual reacts to
certain gestures etc.
Language:
Can questionnaire be written in a neutral language?
Yes, a questionnaire can be produced in a neutral language in
regards to whether a perfect balance is struck in terms of the options listed
in the questionnaire. For instance the reaction of an individual to a specific
food should be presented on a scale of bad middle good as opposed to good very
good excellent, as the diversity in options allows for the questionnaire to be
donned with a more neutral nature.
