social experiment violence

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2024 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

What the Bobo Doll Experiment Reveals About Kids and Aggression

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

Emily Swaim is a board-certified science editor who has worked with top digital publishing brands like Voices for Biodiversity, Study.com, GoodTherapy, and Vox.

• The Experiment

The question of how children learn to engage in violent behavior has been of great interest to parents and researchers alike. In the 1960s, psychologist Albert Bandura and his colleagues conducted what is now known as the Bobo doll experiment, and they demonstrated that children may learn aggression through observation.

Aggression lies at the root of many social ills ranging from interpersonal violence to war. It is little wonder, then, that the subject is one of the most studied topics within psychology.

This article covers what the Bobo doll experiment is, its findings on childhood aggression, as well as its impact on psychology.

The Bobo Doll Experiment

The participants for the experiment were 36 boys and 36 girls enrolled at the Stanford University Nursery School. The children ranged in age between 3 and almost 6 years.

The experiment involved exposing one group of 24 children to an adult modeling aggressive behavior, and another group of 24 children to an adult modeling non-aggressive behavior. The final group of 24 children acted as the control group that was not exposed to adult models.

These groups were divided again into groups of boys and girls. Each of these subgroups was then divided so that half of the participants would be exposed to a same-sex adult model and the other half would be exposed to an opposite-sex adult model.

Each child was tested individually to ensure that their behavior would not be influenced by other children. The child was first brought into a playroom where there were a number of different activities to explore. The experimenter then invited the adult model into the playroom.

In the non-aggressive condition, the adult model simply played with the toys and ignored the Bobo doll for the entire period. In the aggressive model condition, however, the adult models would violently attack the Bobo doll.

The aggressive models would punch Bobo, strike Bobo with a mallet, toss the doll in the air, and kick it around the room. They would also use " verbally aggressive phrases" such as "Kick him" and "Pow." The models also added two non-aggressive phrases: "He sure is a tough fella" and "He keeps coming back for more."

After the ten-minute exposure to the adult model, each child was then taken to another room that contained a number of appealing toys including a doll set, fire engine, and toy airplane.

The children were permitted to play for a brief two minutes, then told they were no longer allowed to play with any of these tempting toys. The purpose of this was to build up frustration levels among the young participants.

Finally, each child was taken to the last experimental room. This room contained a number of "aggressive" toys including a mallet, a tether ball with a face painted on it, dart guns, and, of course, a Bobo doll. The room also included several "non-aggressive" toys including crayons, paper, dolls, plastic animals, and trucks.

Each child was then allowed to play in this room for a period of 20 minutes. During this time, researchers observed the child's behavior from behind a one-way mirror and judged each child's levels of aggression.

Predictions

Bandura made several key predictions about what would occur during the Bobo doll experiment.

• Boys would behave more aggressively than girls.
• Children who observed an adult acting aggressively would be likely to act aggressively, even when the adult model was not present.
• Children would be more likely to imitate models of the same sex rather than models of the opposite sex.
• The children who observed the non-aggressive adult model would be less aggressive than the children who observed the aggressive model; the non-aggressive exposure group would also be less aggressive than the control group.

The results of the experiment supported some of the original predictions, but also included some unexpected findings:

• Bandura and his colleagues had predicted that children in the non-aggressive group would behave less aggressively than those in the control group. The results indicated that while children of both genders in the non-aggressive group did tend to exhibit less aggression than the control group, boys who had observed a non-aggressive, opposite-sex model were more likely than those in the control group to engage in violence.
• Children exposed to the violent model tended to imitate the exact behavior they had observed when the adult model was no longer present.
• Researchers were correct in their prediction that boys would behave more aggressively than girls. Boys engaged in more than twice as many acts of physical aggression than the girls.
• There were important gender differences when it came to whether a same-sex or opposite-sex model was observed. Boys who observed adult males behaving violently were more influenced than those who had observed female models behaving aggressively.
• Interestingly, the experimenters found in same-sex aggressive groups, boys were more likely to imitate physical acts of violence while girls were more likely to imitate verbal aggression.

Impact of the Bobo Doll Experiment

Results of the experiment supported Bandura's social learning theory.

According to Bandura's social learning theory, learning occurs through observations and interactions with other people. Essentially, people learn by watching others and then imitating these actions.

Bandura and his colleagues believed that the Bobo doll experiment demonstrates how specific behaviors can be learned through observation and imitation.

According to Bandura, the violent behavior of the adult models toward the dolls led children to believe that such actions were acceptable.

Bandura also suggested that as a result, children may be more inclined to respond to frustration with aggression in the future.

In a follow-up study conducted in 1965, Bandura found that while children were more likely to imitate aggressive behavior if the adult model was rewarded for his or her actions, they were far less likely to imitate if they saw the adult model being punished or reprimanded for their hostile behavior.

The conclusions drawn from the Bobo doll experiment may help explain human behavior in many areas of life. For instance, the idea that children will imitate the abusive behavior that they witness may provide insight into domestic violence .

Adolescents who grow up witnessing abuse in their homes may be more likely to display violent behavior themselves, and view aggression as an appropriate response to solve interpersonal problems.

Research has found that the Bobo doll experiment and its follow-up study shed light on bullying . For instance, when leadership doesn't give negative consequences for workplace bullying, the bullying is more likely to persist.

Therefore, it's important that aggressive or violent behavior is not tolerated by those with power—whether it's at the workplace, in schools, or at home—or else the aggression is likely to continue and may influence young people who witness it.

Criticism of the Bobo Doll Experiment

Critics point out that acting violently toward a doll is a lot different than displaying aggression or violence against another human being in a real-world setting.

In other words, a child acting violently toward a doll doesn't necessarily indicate they'll act violently toward a person.

Because the experiment took place in a lab setting, some critics suggest that results observed in this type of location may not be indicative of what takes place in the real world.

It has also been suggested that children were not actually motivated to display aggression when they hit the Bobo doll; instead, they may have simply been trying to please the adults. It's worth noting that the children didn't actually hurt the Bobo doll, nor did they think they were hurting it.

In addition, by intentionally frustrating the children, some argue that the experimenters were essentially teaching the children to be aggressive.

It's also not known whether the children were actually aggressive or simply imitating the behavior without aggressive intent (most children will imitate behavior right after they see it, but they don't necessarily continue it in the long term).

Since data was collected immediately, it is also difficult to know what the long-term impact might have been.

Additional criticisms note the biases of the researchers. Since they knew that the children were already frustrated, they may have been more likely to interpret the children's actions as aggressive.

The study may also suffer from selection bias. All participants were drawn from a narrow pool of students who share the same racial and socioeconomic background. This makes it difficult to generalize the results to a larger, more diverse population.

A Word From Verywell

Bandura's experiment remains one of the most well-known studies in psychology. Today, social psychologists continue to study the impact of observed violence on children's behavior. In the decades since the Bobo doll experiment, there have been hundreds of studies on how observing violence impacts children's behavior.

Today, researchers continue to ponder the question of whether the violence children witness on television, in the movies, or through video games translates to aggressive or violent behavior in the real world.

Bandura A. Influence of models' reinforcement contingencies on the acquisition of imitative responses . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1965;1:589-595. doi:10.1037/h0022070

Xia Y, Li S, Liu TH. The interrelationship between family violence, adolescent violence, and adolescent violent victimization: An application and extension of the cultural spillover theory in China . IJERPH. 2018;15(2):371. doi:10.3390/ijerph15020371

Hollis LP. Lessons from Bandura’s Bobo doll experiments: Leadership’s deliberate indifference exacerbates workplace bullying in higher education . JSPTE. 2019;4:085-102. doi:10.28945/4426

Altin D, Jablonski J, Lyke J, et al. Gender difference in perceiving aggression using the Bobo doll studies . Modern Psychological Studies. 2011;16:2.

Bandura A, Ross D, Ross SA. Transmission of aggression through imitation of aggressive models . Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 1961;63:575-82. doi:10.1037/h0045925

Ferguson CJ. Blazing Angels or Resident Evil? Can violent video games be a force for good? Review of General Psychology. 2010;14(2) : 68-81. doi:10.1037/a0018941

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

Bandura’s Bobo Doll Experiment on Social Learning

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.

During the 1960s, Albert Bandura conducted a series of experiments on observational learning , collectively known as the Bobo doll experiments. Two of the experiments are described below:

Bandura (1961) conducted a controlled experiment study to investigate if social behaviors (i.e., aggression) can be acquired by observation and imitation.

Bandura, Ross, and Ross (1961) tested 36 boys and 36 girls from the Stanford University Nursery School aged between 3 to 6 years old.

The researchers pre-tested the children for how aggressive they were by observing the children in the nursery and judged their aggressive behavior on four 5-point rating scales.

It was then possible to match the children in each group so that they had similar levels of aggression in their everyday behavior. The experiment is, therefore, an example of a matched pairs design .

To test the inter-rater reliability of the observers, 51 of the children were rated by two observers independently, and their ratings were compared. These ratings showed a very high-reliability correlation (r = 0.89), which suggested that the observers had a good agreement about the behavior of the children.

A lab experiment was used, in which the independent variable (the type of model) was manipulated in three conditions:

• Aggressive model is shown to 24 children
• Non-aggressive model is shown to 24 children
• No model is shown (control condition) – 24 children

Stage 1: Modeling

In the experimental conditions, children were individually shown into a room containing toys and played with some potato prints and pictures in a corner for 10 minutes while either:

• 24 children (12 boys and 12 girls) watched a male or female model behaving aggressively towards a toy called a “Bobo doll”. The adults attacked the Bobo doll in a distinctive manner – they used a hammer in some cases, and in others threw the doll in the air and shouted “Pow, Boom.”
• Another 24 children (12 boys and 12 girls) were exposed to a non-aggressive model who played in a quiet and subdued manner for 10 minutes (playing with a tinker toy set and ignoring the bobo-doll).
• The final 24 children (12 boys and 12 girls) were used as a control group and not exposed to any model at all.

Stage 2: Aggression Arousal

All the children (including the control group) were subjected to “mild aggression arousal.” Each child was (separately) taken to a room with relatively attractive toys.

As soon as the child started to play with the toys, the experimenter told the child that these were the experimenter’s very best toys and she had decided to reserve them for the other children.

Stage 3: Test for Delayed Imitation

• The next room contained some aggressive toys and some non-aggressive toys. The non-aggressive toys included a tea set, crayons, three bears and plastic farm animals. The aggressive toys included a mallet and peg board, dart guns, and a 3 foot Bobo doll.
• The child was in the room for 20 minutes, and their behavior was observed and rated though a one-way mirror. Observations were made at 5-second intervals, therefore, giving 240 response units for each child.
• Other behaviors that didn’t imitate that of the model were also recorded e.g., punching the Bobo doll on the nose.
• Children who observed the aggressive model made far more imitative aggressive responses than those who were in the non-aggressive or control groups.
• There was more partial and non-imitative aggression among those children who had observed aggressive behavior, although the difference for non-imitative aggression was small.
• The girls in the aggressive model condition also showed more physically aggressive responses if the model was male, but more verbally aggressive responses if the model was female. However, the exception to this general pattern was the observation of how often they punched Bobo, and in this case the effects of gender were reversed.
• Boys were more likely to imitate same-sex models than girls. The evidence for girls imitating same-sex models is not strong.
• Boys imitated more physically aggressive acts than girls. There was little difference in verbal aggression between boys and girls.

Bobo doll experiment demonstrated that children are able to learn social behavior such as aggression through the process of observation learning, through watching the behavior of another person. The findings support Bandura’s (1977) Social Learning Theory .

This study has important implications for the effects of media violence on children.

There are three main advantages of the experimental method .

• Experiments are the only means by which cause and effect can be established. Thus, it could be demonstrated that the model did have an effect on the child’s subsequent behavior because all variables other than the independent variable are controlled.
• It allows for precise control of variables. Many variables were controlled, such as the gender of the model, the time the children observed the model, the behavior of the model, and so on.
• Experiments can be replicated. Standardized procedures and instructions were used, allowing for replicability. In fact, the study has been replicated with slight changes, such as using video, and similar results were found (Bandura, 1963).

Limitations of the procedure include:

• Many psychologists are very critical of laboratory studies of imitation – in particular, because they tend to have low ecological validity. The situation involves the child and an adult model, which is a very limited social situation and there is no interaction between the child and the model at any point; certainly the child has no chance to influence the model in any way.
• Also, the model and the child are strangers. This, of course, is quite unlike “normal” modeling, which often takes place within the family.
• Cumberbatch (1990) found that children who had not played with a Bobo Doll before were five times as likely to imitate the aggressive behavior than those who were familiar with it; he claims that the novelty value of the doll makes it more likely that children will imitate the behavior.
• A further criticism of the study is that the demonstrations are measured almost immediately. With such snapshot studies, we cannot discover if such a single exposure can have long-term effects.
• It is possible to argue that the bobo doll experiment was unethical. For example, there is the problem of whether or not the children suffered any long-term consequences as a result of the study. Although it is unlikely, we can never be certain.

Vicarious Reinforcement Bobo Doll Study

An observer’s behavior can also be affected by the positive or negative consequences of a model’s behavior.

So we not only watch what people do, but we watch what happens when they do things. This is known as vicarious reinforcement. We are more likely to imitate behavior that is rewarded and refrain from behavior that is punished.

Bandura (1965) used a similar experimental set up to the one outlined above to test vicarious reinforcement. The experiment had different consequences for the model’s aggression to the three groups of children.

One group saw the model’s aggression being rewarded (being given sweets and a drink for a “championship performance,” another group saw the model being punished for the aggression (scolded), and the third group saw no specific consequences (control condition).

When allowed to enter the playroom, children in the reward and control conditions imitated more aggressive actions of the model than did the children in the punishment condition.

The children in the model punished group had learned the aggression by observational learning, but did not imitate it because they expected negative consequences.

Reinforcement gained by watching another person is known as vicarious reinforcement.

Bandura, A. (1965). Influence of models” reinforcement contingencies on the acquisition of imitative responses . Journal of personality and social psychology, 1(6) , 589.

Bandura, A., Ross, D. & Ross, S.A. (1961). Transmission of aggression through imitation of aggressive models .  Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology , 63, 575-82.

Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. (1963). Imitation of film-mediated aggressive models . The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology , 66(1), 3.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Further Information

• Bandura’s Social Learning Theory
• Bobo Doll Study Summary
• BBC Radio 4 Programme: The Bobo Doll
• Bobo Doll Summary PowerPoint

Learn More Psychology

• Behavioral Psychology

Bandura's Bobo Doll Experiment

Albert bandura's influential bobo doll experiments reveal how children imitate tv violence and the behavior of others..

Permalink Print   |  

In 1961, the Canadian-American psychologist, Albert Bandura (1925-) conducted a controversial experiment examining the process by which new forms of behavior - and in particular, aggression - are learnt. The initial study, along with Bandura’s follow-up research, would later be known as the Bobo doll experiment . The experiment revealed that children imitate the aggressive behavior of adults. The findings support Bandura’s social learning theory , which emphasises the influence of observational learning on behavior.

Bandura also conducted a number of follow-up studies during the 1960s which examined how witnessing a third party being rewarded or punished for behaving in a particular manner can influence a bystander’s own actions. He concluded that vicarious reinforcement , as well as direct rewards and punishments, can impact on an observer’s behavior.

Prior to Bandura’s experiments, conditioning dominated the behaviorist view of learning. During the 1890s, t he influential Russian physiologist Ivan Pavlov had found that dogs would learn new behavior through classical conditioning . When a single stimulus was repeatedly paired with a particular event, such as the ringing of a bell with feeding time, salivation would begin to occur in response to the sound. Behaviorist B. F. Skinner  further developed Pavlov’s theory, and proposed operant conditioning , whereby reinforcements lead to new forms of behavior being learnt.

Bandura viewed such conditioning as being reductionist in its understanding of human learning as a simple process of acquiring new ‘responses’ to stimuli. Instead, he turned his attention to the imitative behavior of children who watch, and then attempt to copy, the behavior of others.

Bandura et al (1961)

Bandura, Ross and Ross (1961) devised an experiment in which participants would observe an adult behaving in a violent manner towards a Bobo doll toy. The toys, which were popular during the 1960s, feature an image of a clown and were designed to self-right when pushed over.

The experiment took place at Stanford University , where Bandura was then working in a teaching position as a professor. The participants - children who attended the Stanford University nursery - were divided into groups. Children in one of these groups were placed in a room in which they witnessed an adult hitting a Bobo doll in an aggressive manner. They were later given the opportunity to play with the dolls for themselves.

The researchers found that the group of children who had observed an adult behaving violently towards the toy were more likely to act aggressively towards it themselves when given the opportunity. These findings indicate that learning takes place not only when individuals are rewarded or punished for their own behavior, but also when they observe another person exhibiting violent behavior - a process called observational learning .

In 1963, Bandura conducted a second experiment which replicated many aspects of the previous study. However, instead of observing an adult’s violent behavior firsthand, they watched a video of the Bobo doll being struck. As in the 1961 experiment, those participants who watched the film of a person being aggressive were more likely to behave violently towards the toy than participants in a control group. The study indicates that indirect exposure to violent behavior through film or television may lead to actions being imitated in a similar way to behavior observed in person ( Bandura et al, 1963 ).

In a third study, Bandura tested whether the types of reinforcement that Skinner had used to encourage and discourage behavior (operant conditioning) would influence the behavior of an observer who witnessed a third party being rewarded or punished for his or her actions.

Bandura shows a film to participants in which a person again beat the toy. One group watched as the person’s behavior was reinforced by way of a food reward, whilst a second group saw a video in which the person was criticised for their violent behavior. The researchers found that the children who watched the video in which positive reinforcements were given were more likely to subsequently behave violently themselves ( Bandura, 1965 ). This process of vicarious reinforcement suggests that learning takes place not just through direct observation, but also through the media that a person consumes.

Social Learning Theory

In 1977, drawing on his previous experimental research, Bandura outlined his social learning theory , which attempts to explain the effect of social interactions on learning. According to Bandura's theory, a person may observe the behavior of people around them.

At an early age, such people primarily consist of the parents or primary caregiver, siblings and later, classmates. A child may also observe the behavior of fictional characters on television and in films. Bandura argues that through observational learning, an individual may imitate the behavior of others. Furthermore, when a person sees another individual being punished or rewarded for their actions, their evaluation of the behavior will be further influenced, even if their own behavior has not been reinforced directly.

One area of focus of the Bobo doll studies was the way in which children imitate the aggressive behavior of an adult. However, as the dolls were designed to be hit and pushed, and to rebound after being knocked over, some have suggested that the participants were not exhibiting aggressive behavior, but merely playing with the toy as it was intended to be used. This has led critics of the study to consider its experiment design to be flawed, as its participants were conforming to the demand characteristics of the situation.

Nonetheless, studies carried out in the decades since Bandura’s initial research have lent further support to his observation that violent behavior on-screen can influence the actions of those viewing it.  Heuessman, Lagerspetz and Eron (1984) studied children’s behavior after they had watched television programs containing violence. The researchers found that the participants, and in particular males, were more likely to behave in an aggressive manner if they had seen such behavior on television.

The findings of Bandura’s Bobo doll experiments remain influential in the study of learning and aggression. His research furthered our understanding of how children learn from their parents, siblings and friends through imitation. It also provided early evidence that violence in films and other media can negatively influence viewers' behavior.

However, the Bobo doll studies have also drawn criticism for the methodology that Bandura and his colleagues used:

Selection bias : The sample that Bandura used in his studies attended the nursery school at Stanford University, and so the study has been criticised for its selection bias. Participants may be expected to be from a more privileged background in terms of family education and income than the general population. Therefore, it is difficult to generalise Bandura’s findings to individuals from more diverse backgrounds.

External validity : As the age of participants in Bandura’s experiments were in a narrow range (i.e. nursery school age), the findings lack high external validity. Whilst the observational learning that he identified may occur in children at an early age, it may be the case that the imitation of adults ceases as a person grows older. As a result, findings may not apply to the wider population.

Critics have also raised question regarding the ethics of the methodology used in the Bobo doll experiments. A sample of children observed an adult behaving aggressively towards an anthropomorphic toy, whilst the researchers would have been aware that this behavior might be imitated by at least a proportion of the participants.

• Bandura, A., Ross, D. and Ross, S. A. (1961). Transmission of Aggression Through Imitation of Aggressive Models. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology , 63 , 575-582.
• Bandura, A., Ross, D. and Ross, S. A. (1961). Imitation of Film-Mediated Aggressive Models. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology , 66 (1), 3-11.
• Bandura, A. (1965). Influence of Models’ Reinforcement Contingencies on the Acquisition of Imitative Responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 1 (6), 589.
• Huessmann, L. R., Lagerspetz, K. And Eron, L. D. (1984). Intervening Variables in the TV Violence-Aggression Relation: Evidence From Two Countries. Developmental Psychology , 20 (5), 746-775.

Which Archetype Are You?

Are You Angry?

Windows to the Soul

Are You Stressed?

Attachment & Relationships

Memory Like A Goldfish?

31 Defense Mechanisms

Slave To Your Role?

Are You Fixated?

Interpret Your Dreams

How to Read Body Language

How to Beat Stress and Succeed in Exams

More on Behavioral Psychology

Pavlov's Dogs

How Pavlov's experiments with dogs demonstrated that our behavior can be...

Pavlov's Dogs And Classical Conditioning

Dressing To Impress

The psychology driving our clothing choices and how fashion affects your dating...

Shock Therapy

Aversion therapy uses the principle that new behavior can be 'learnt' in order...

Immerse To Overcome?

If you jumped out of a plane, would you overcome your fear of heights?

Imprinting: Why First Impressions Matter

How first impressions from birth influence our relationship choices later in...

Sign Up for  Unlimited Access

• Psychology approaches, theories and studies explained
• Body Language Reading Guide
• How to Interpret Your Dreams Guide
• Self Hypnosis Downloads
• Plus More Member Benefits

You May Also Like...

Why do we dream, dark sense of humor linked to intelligence, making conversation, brainwashed, nap for performance, psychology of color, master body language, persuasion with ingratiation, psychology  guides.

Learn Body Language Reading

How To Interpret Your Dreams

Overcome Your Fears and Phobias

Psychology topics, learn psychology.

• Access 2,200+ insightful pages of psychology explanations & theories
• Insights into the way we think and behave
• Body Language & Dream Interpretation guides
• Self hypnosis MP3 downloads and more
• Behavioral Approach
• Eye Reading
• Stress Test
• Cognitive Approach
• Fight-or-Flight Response
• Neuroticism Test

© 2024 Psychologist World. Home About Contact Us Terms of Use Privacy & Cookies Hypnosis Scripts Sign Up

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Employing Research To Understand Violence Against Women

Fifty years ago, violence against women, and domestic violence in particular, was not considered a criminal justice concern in this country. It was largely viewed as a personal matter, best dealt with privately within families.

With a sweeping reinvestment in criminal justice reform in the 1960s, the women’s movement of the 1960s and 1970s, and efforts in the late 1980s and 1990s that led to passage of the Violence Against Women Act in 1994, violence against women entered the public consciousness in the United States. It began to be recognized as a serious public health and public safety problem that warranted criminal justice system intervention.

Over the past 50 years, NIJ has established and expanded a strong program that addresses violence against women. Its portfolio has funded more than $130 million in research on intimate partner violence, sexual violence, stalking, teen dating violence, and other related topics. NIJ-funded initiatives have also helped finance the testing of previously unsubmitted sexual assault kits and establish best practices in testing these kits.

Kristina Rose, a former NIJ acting director who worked on violence against women issues throughout her 19 years with the U.S. Department of Justice, summed up NIJ’s influence: “When it comes to violence against women, NIJ has been brave and pioneering across the spectrum of issues to help people understand what we know about violence against women, including what the criminal justice response should look like.”

Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment

In the wake of national attention surrounding violence against women in the 1970s and early 1980s, NIJ funded a randomized controlled trial experiment in Minneapolis that examined various law enforcement responses to domestic violence. [1] In 1984, the results of the Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment indicated that spending a night in jail significantly reduced the risk that a person would commit a future act of domestic violence. As a result, many police departments across the country implemented pro-arrest or mandatory arrest policies in domestic violence situations.

Given the findings and the implications for law enforcement, NIJ funded six replication studies, beginning in 1986. These studies showed contradictory results, which underscored the importance of replicating research studies. Replication ensures that results are valid, reliable, and generalizable.

Although replications found mixed results, the Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment marked a significant change in how law enforcement approached intimate partner violence.

“This was the first time there was a shift in how the criminal justice system thought about and responded to domestic violence,” says Angela Moore, senior science advisor and social scientist at NIJ.

Nearly 40 years later, the Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment is still frequently cited as a pivotal study.

The Violence Against Women Act

The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) of 1994 was landmark legislation that created legal protections for victims of domestic and sexual violence and established funding streams for responding to these crimes. Filling critical resource gaps in every state, VAWA grant programs support law enforcement agencies, prosecutors’ offices, courts, domestic violence shelters, and rape crisis centers in serving victims and holding persons who commit violent acts against women accountable. VAWA also expanded the scope and scale of U.S. research on violence against women and led to a significant expansion of NIJ’s major research and evaluation efforts in the field.

“VAWA was an impetus,” says Moore. “We did some work on violence against women before the Act, but the funding NIJ received as a result of VAWA helped us spring forward and gave rise to the program we have today.”

VAWA was reauthorized in 2000, 2005, and 2013, and separate legislation in 2002 established the Office on Violence Against Women (OVW), a Department of Justice agency responsible for leading the implementation of VAWA grant programs.

“Thanks to funding administered by OVW, communities have developed coordinated responses to crimes of violence against women,” says OVW Acting Director Katharine Sullivan. “Justice system professionals, victim services providers, and other community partners have used these grants to work together to ensure that victims get the help they need and that dangerous persons are stopped from committing more crimes. These coordinated community responses have transformed how domestic violence is treated in the criminal and civil justice systems and sparked innovative prevention efforts like Maryland’s Lethality Assessment Program to reduce domestic violence homicides.”

In 1998, NIJ began receiving designated VAWA funds for research on violence against women. Funding allocations varied by year — ranging from $7 million in 1998 to $1.88 million in 2008 and 2009 — with a current allocation of $3 million to $5 million each fiscal year. This steady stream of funds from OVW has helped NIJ study the nature and scope of violence against women and the effectiveness of strategies for combatting these crimes. Knowledge generated through NIJ’s Violence Against Women program informs efforts within the Department of Justice and in communities across the nation to protect victims and bring those who commit violent acts against women to justice.

Collecting Representative Data

Despite the considerable number of studies on violence against women that were conducted in the 1980s and 1990s, there remained a critical need to understand the magnitude and nature of intimate partner violence, sexual violence, and stalking in a way that would provide accurate and reliable data. Surveys that frame questions within the context of crime do not necessarily provide representative data on respondents’ experiences with violence against women, in part because people do not always self-identify as victims of crime.

To address this research gap, in 2000 NIJ partnered with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on the National Violence Against Women Survey (NVAWS). [2] The survey revealed that more than half of the surveyed women reported being physically assaulted at some point in their lives, and nearly two-thirds of women who reported being raped, physically assaulted, or stalked were victimized by intimate partners.

For two reasons, this survey has been consistently cited as a more reliable representation of rates of violence against women than surveys that frame victimization within the context of crime. First, the NVAWS did not rely solely on reported offenses because the vast majority of crimes go unreported. Second, the survey was designed to ask detailed, behavior-specific questions about respondents’ victimization experiences. By asking questions that avoid legal terms (for example, “rape”) and instead asking about a suspect’s specific behaviors (for example, “slapped,” “pushed,” and “shoved”), the survey avoided attributing blame or labeling respondents as victims.

The NVAWS was one of many NIJ-CDC collaborations to address violence against women. As a result, NIJ was able to bring a public health perspective to its work, alongside its inherent focus on public safety. NIJ again collaborated with CDC, as well as the U.S. Department of Defense Family Advocacy Program, to develop the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS); the first survey report was produced in 2011. [3] CDC continues to administer the NISVS to capture data about violence against women and men, and the survey has become one of the most frequently cited data sets in the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data.

Research After VAWA

VAWA mandated that the Department of Justice work in partnership with the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to develop a research agenda for violence against women. The 1996 NAS report Understanding Violence Against Women was instrumental in shaping the direction of NIJ’s violence against women research portfolio. Subsequent NAS reports, along with strategic planning workshops and other input, have also informed program goals and direction.

Intimate Partner Violence

Through grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts supported by VAWA funding, NIJ has supported more than 200 studies on intimate partner violence — accounting for nearly half of the agency’s total funding allocations for violence against women research since 1993. Over this period, rates of intimate partner homicides have dropped nearly 30 percent as public awareness of intimate partner violence and policy responses have grown. [4] In 2016, NIJ hosted a meeting with prominent researchers and criminal justice practitioners to inform the Institute’s research agenda moving forward.

NIJ-funded studies on intimate partner violence have focused on definition and measurement, victims and those who commit the violent act, impacts on children, contexts and consequences, civil and criminal justice interventions, and processes used to respond to these crimes. This research has found links between intimate partner violence and early parenthood, severe poverty, and unemployment and has shown that understanding the demographic differences among victims and person who abuse their partner helps predict which interventions will be successful in specific groups.

Violence Against Women in Special Populations

Violence against women is a multifaceted issue that affects populations on many levels. NIJ’s broad name for its violence against women program — the Violence Against Women and Family Violence Research and Evaluation Program [5] — helped make it possible for NIJ to fund research on a wide range of topics related to violence against women, including trauma and the impact on children exposed to violence. This work also gave rise to a focus on teen dating violence and the maltreatment of elderly adults.

“There’s a lot of research that talks about the intergenerational aspects of violence against women,” says Moore. “It’s important to study these other facets of violence because they can have a tremendous impact within families, communities, and society as a whole.”

Building on a long history of research in the area of intimate partner violence, NIJ’s teen dating violence research portfolio grew out of a recognition that the field needed to explore how to prevent dating violence in populations younger than adults. NIJ has funded nearly three dozen studies on teen dating violence since the portfolio was established in 2005. NIJ also sponsored an interagency working group on teen dating violence in 2006. [6]

VAWA reauthorizations in 2005 and 2013 called for NIJ, in consultation with OVW, to conduct analyses and research on violence against American Indian and Alaska Native women in Indian Country. NIJ focused subsequent research on dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault, sex trafficking, stalking, and murder in these communities. NIJ-funded research also evaluated the effectiveness of federal, state, tribal, and local responses to violence against American Indian and Alaska Native women. As part of the NIJ-CDC partnership, NIJ funded an oversampling of American Indian and Alaska Native women and men in 2010. The data revealed that four out of five American Indian and Alaska Native women in the United States have experienced violence in their lifetimes, and that these women find it much more difficult than other populations to access victim services. [7]

NIJ has funded dozens of additional studies to examine violence against women in specific populations, including disabled, elderly, and homeless persons; recipients of welfare; immigrants; incarcerated individuals; and various racial, cultural, and ethnic groups.

Sexual Violence

NIJ supported its first sexual violence research project in 1973, but the agency’s research on sexual violence dramatically expanded in the 1990s after the passage of VAWA. The first solicitation that focused exclusively on sexual violence was issued in 2002, when NIJ-funded research provided the first comprehensive national look at rape and sexual assault on college campuses.

NIJ has also done groundbreaking work to assist in the processing of sexual assault evidence nationally. In 2011, NIJ funded action-research projects in Houston, Texas, and Wayne County, Michigan, to help understand the nature and scope of untested sexual assault kits and to identify effective, sustainable, victim-centric responses to sexual assault. Additionally, through an NIJ-FBI partnership, the FBI laboratory in Quantico, Virginia, tested thousands of previously untested sexual assault kits from across the country, and NIJ convened the NIJ Sexual Assault Forensic Evidence Reporting (SAFER) working group. Information gleaned from these efforts contributed to the creation of the publication National Best Practices for Sexual Assault Kits: A Multidisciplinary Approach, which NIJ released in 2017. [8]

NIJ is also evaluating the Bureau of Justice Assistance’s Sexual Assault Kit Initiative (SAKI). The action-research projects in Houston, Wayne County, and other jurisdictions helped inform and establish the multidisciplinary nature of SAKI and underscored the need for collaboration between multiple components of the criminal justice system on sexual assault kit testing.

NIJ’s preliminary research in this area examined the stalking of members of Congress and celebrities in the 1980s. In 1993, NIJ was directed to develop a model anti-stalking code. NIJ has funded five projects on stalking, but this remains the least funded research topic in NIJ’s violence against women program, in part because of the difficulty of measuring and capturing reliable data on the subject.

Disseminating Results

NIJ-funded researchers have published scholarly articles related to violence against women in more than 50 different journals. The NIJ Journal has been an additional platform to disseminate research results, and a special issue of the Violence Against Women journal in 2013 highlighted NIJ’s programs. [9] NIJ’s Compendium of Research on Violence Against Women spans nearly 300 pages and includes summary information on all research related to violence against women from 1993 to the present, with links to study reports and manuscripts. [10]

NIJ releases an annual notice of funding opportunity and has more than 50 active research projects on violence against women.

“All of NIJ’s work aims to respond to the needs and questions of the criminal justice field,” says Moore. “NIJ has funded work that has transformed the evidence base around what we know in regard to violence against women. We have come a long way since the Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment and the early days of our violence against women work. What hasn’t changed over the past 50 years is our commitment to funding research to better understand violence against women and how best to combat it moving forward.”

About This Article

This article was published as part of NIJ Journal issue number 281 , released May 2019.

[note 1] In this article, the terms “domestic violence” and “intimate partner violence” can be considered synonyms. NIJ now uses the more inclusive term “intimate partner violence,” which does not imply that this violence occurs exclusively within a domestic setting.

[note 2] National Institute of Justice, Full Report of the Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Violence Against Women: Findings From the National Violence Against Women Survey , Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, November 2000, NCJ 183781.

[note 3] “ The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS) ,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, updated September 19, 2018.

[note 4] See Intimate Partner Violence: Interventions .

[note 5] See Violence Against Women and Family Violence Program .

[note 6] For more information on the NIJ teen dating violence research portfolio, see Teen Dating Violence .

[note 7] André B. Rosay, Violence Against American Indian and Alaska Native Women and Men: 2010 Findings From the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey , Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, May 2016, NCJ 249736.

[note 8] National Institute of Justice, National Best Practices for Sexual Assault Kits: A Multidisciplinary Approach , Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 2017, NCJ 250384.

[note 9] Bernard Auchter, ed., “The Violence Against Women Research and Evaluation Program at the National Institute of Justice,” special issue, Violence Against Women 19 no. 6 (2013).

[note 10] National Institute of Justice, Violence and Victimization Research Division's Compendium of Research on Violence Against Women, 1993-2016 , Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, August 2017, NCJ 223572.

About the author

Rianna P. Starheim is a writer and former contractor with Leidos.

Cite this Article

Read more about:, related publications.

• Violence and Victimization Research Division's Compendium of Research on Violence Against Women, 1993-2018 Date Published: November 2020
• NIJ Journal Issue No. 281 Date Published: January 2019

• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar

IResearchNet

Social Psychology Experiments

Social psychology experiments have played a pivotal role in unraveling the intricate tapestry of human behavior, cognition, and emotions within the social context. These experiments represent more than just scientific inquiries; they serve as windows into the fundamental aspects of human nature and the ways in which we interact with others. This article delves into a selection of famous experiments in social psychology, each a milestone in understanding the complexities of human social behavior.

Thesis Statement: The significance of these famous experiments extends far beyond the realm of academia, shaping our understanding of conformity, obedience, group dynamics, morality, and the subconscious biases that influence our decisions and actions. Through these groundbreaking studies, we gain valuable insights into the human condition, prompting us to question, explore, and reflect upon the intricate web of social interactions that define our lives.

Famous Experiments in Social Psychology

The Bennington College study was conducted by sociologist Theodore Newcomb from 1935 until 1939. The study examined the attitudes of students attending the then all-female Bennington College early in the college’s history; indeed, the study began during the first year that the college had a senior class.

Solomon Asch’s Conformity experiments in the 1950s starkly demonstrated the power of conformity on people’s estimation of the length of lines. On over a third of the trials, participants conformed to the majority, even though the majority judgment was clearly wrong. Seventy-five percent of the participants conformed at least once during the experiment.

In Muzafer Sherif ’s Robbers Cave experiment (1954) boys were divided into two competing groups to explore how much hostility and aggression would emerge. It is also known as realistic group conflict theory, because the intergroup conflict was induced through competition over resources.

Leon Festinger’s Cognitive Dissonance experiment subjects were asked to perform a boring task. They were divided into two groups and given two different pay scales. At the end of the study, participants who were paid $1 to say that they enjoyed the task and another group of participants were paid $20 to say the same lie. The first group ($1) would later believe that they like the task better than the second group ($20). People justified the lie by changing their previously unfavorable attitudes about the task (Festinger and Carlsmith 1959).

Stanley Milgram’s Obedience to Authority experiment has shown how far people would go to obey an authority figure. Following the events of the Holocaust in World War II Stanley Milgram’s experiments of the 1960s/1970s showed that normal American citizens were capable of following orders to the point of causing extreme suffering in an innocent human being.

Albert Bandura’s Bobo Doll experiment has demonstrated how aggression is learned by imitation (Bandura et al. 1961). Bandura’s experimental work was one of the first studies in a long line of research showing how exposure to media violence leads to aggressive behavior in the observers.

In Philip Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison experiment a simulated exercise between student prisoners and guards showed how far people would follow an adopted role. This was an important demonstration of the power of the immediate social situation, and its capacity to overwhelm normal personality traits (Haney et al. 1973).

The Milgram Experiment

Background and Context

The Milgram Experiment, conducted by psychologist Stanley Milgram in the early 1960s, arose in a climate of post-World War II questions about obedience, authority, and moral responsibility. Inspired by the Nuremberg Trials and the revelation of the atrocities committed by Nazi personnel who claimed to be “just following orders,” Milgram sought to explore the extent to which individuals would obey authority figures, even when it conflicted with their own moral beliefs.

Experiment Setup and Procedure

The experiment involved three key roles: the experimenter (authority figure), the teacher (participant), and the learner (an actor). Participants believed they were assisting in a study examining the effects of punishment on learning. The teacher was instructed to administer increasingly severe electric shocks to the learner for incorrect responses in a word-pair memory test. Unbeknownst to the teacher, the learner did not actually receive shocks, but their responses were scripted to simulate distress and pain.

Ethical Concerns and Criticisms

The Milgram Experiment has been widely criticized for its ethical implications. Participants were exposed to significant psychological stress and believed they were causing harm to another person, potentially leading to long-lasting emotional trauma. Critics argue that the experiment lacked proper informed consent, and the debriefing process may not have been sufficient to alleviate the distress experienced by participants.

Major Findings and Their Impact

The Milgram Experiment revealed astonishing results. Contrary to expectations, a significant proportion of participants, under the pressure of the authority figure’s commands, continued to administer shocks up to potentially lethal levels, even when they were aware of the learner’s distress. This demonstrated the profound influence of authority figures on individual behavior.

The study shed light on the psychology of obedience and the potential for ordinary people to engage in harmful actions under the guise of following orders. Milgram’s findings raised ethical and moral questions about blind obedience and individual responsibility in the face of authority.

The Stanford Prison Experiment

The Stanford Prison Experiment, conducted by psychologist Philip Zimbardo in 1971, stands as one of the most notorious and influential studies in social psychology. Emerging during a tumultuous period in American history marked by social unrest and the questioning of authority, the experiment sought to investigate the psychological dynamics of power, authority, and the consequences of perceived roles within a simulated prison environment.

Description of the Experiment

The experiment involved the transformation of the basement of Stanford University’s psychology department into a mock prison. Volunteers were randomly assigned to play the roles of either guards or prisoners in a simulated prison environment. The participants quickly adapted to their roles, with guards displaying authoritarian behaviors, and prisoners experiencing psychological distress and rebellion. The study was originally intended to last two weeks but was terminated after only six days due to the alarming and unethical behaviors exhibited by both guards and prisoners.

Ethical Controversies

The Stanford Prison Experiment has been mired in ethical controversies. Critics argue that the psychological harm inflicted upon participants was severe, and the lack of proper oversight allowed the study to veer into dangerous territory. Questions have also been raised regarding the informed consent process, as participants were not fully aware of the potential psychological consequences of their involvement.

Key Findings and Implications

Despite its ethical shortcomings, the Stanford Prison Experiment yielded valuable insights into the malleability of human behavior in response to situational factors. It demonstrated how ordinary individuals could quickly adopt abusive and authoritarian roles when placed in positions of power. The study underscored the importance of ethical considerations in psychological research and prompted discussions about the responsibility of researchers to ensure the well-being of participants.

The implications of the study extend beyond academia, offering a cautionary tale about the potential for abuses of power and authority. It has influenced discussions on ethics in research, the psychology of group dynamics, and the understanding of how situational factors can shape behavior.

The Asch Conformity Experiment

Introduction and Historical Context

The Asch Conformity Experiment, conducted by Solomon Asch in the 1950s, remains a seminal study in the field of social psychology. Emerging in the post-World War II era, this experiment aimed to investigate the extent to which individuals conform to group norms and the impact of social pressure on individual decision-making.

Experiment Design and Methodology

In the Asch Conformity Experiment, participants were placed in a group of individuals, with the participant being the only true subject. The group was presented with a simple perceptual task: comparing the length of lines. Participants were asked to state which of several lines was of equal length to a reference line. Unknown to the participant, the other group members were confederates who had been instructed to give incorrect answers in some trials.

During the critical trials, the confederates deliberately provided incorrect answers that contradicted the obvious correct response. The participant, seated at the end of the row, faced the dilemma of whether to conform to the group’s incorrect consensus or assert their own judgment.

Conformity Results and Interpretations

The results of the Asch Conformity Experiment were striking. Despite the obvious correctness of their own judgments, participants frequently succumbed to group pressure and provided incorrect responses to match the consensus of the group. On average, about one-third of participants conformed to the group’s incorrect answers in the face of social pressure.

Asch’s findings underscored the potent influence of social conformity and the willingness of individuals to abandon their own perceptions and judgment in favor of group consensus. He also identified several factors that influenced the likelihood of conformity, such as the size of the majority and the unanimity of the group.

Influence on Social Psychology and Beyond

The Asch Conformity Experiment significantly impacted social psychology by highlighting the powerful role of social influence on human behavior. It prompted further research into group dynamics, conformity, and the psychology of social norms. Asch’s work laid the foundation for studies on topics such as groupthink, normative influence, and the conditions under which individuals are more likely to resist social pressure.

Beyond social psychology, the experiment has practical implications for understanding how conformity operates in everyday life, from peer pressure among adolescents to decision-making in organizations. The study has also been instrumental in discussions about individual autonomy and the tension between conforming to societal expectations and asserting one’s independent judgment.

The Asch Conformity Experiment remains a timeless exploration of the human propensity to conform and the psychological mechanisms at play when individuals navigate the tension between individuality and social cohesion.

The Robbers Cave Experiment

Background and Purpose of the Study

The Robbers Cave Experiment, conducted by psychologist Muzafer Sherif and his colleagues in 1954, was designed to investigate intergroup conflict and cooperation among children. The study emerged during a time when Cold War tensions and conflicts between nations were a prominent backdrop, prompting Sherif to explore the dynamics of group conflict on a smaller scale.

The central purpose of the study was to understand how group identities, competition, and cooperation could influence the attitudes and behaviors of individuals within groups and across groups. It sought to shed light on the origins of intergroup hostility and the potential for reconciliation.

Experimental Design and Procedures

The study took place at Robbers Cave State Park in Oklahoma and involved two phases.

• Group Formation : In the first phase, a group of 22 boys was divided into two groups, the Rattlers and the Eagles, with no prior knowledge of each other. The boys formed strong group identities through team-building activities and bonding experiences.
• Intergroup Competition : In the second phase, the two groups were introduced to each other and engaged in competitive activities, such as sports and contests, where rivalries quickly developed. The competition intensified intergroup conflicts, leading to name-calling, vandalism, and hostility.
• Intervention and Cooperation : To address the escalating conflict, the researchers initiated activities that required the groups to collaborate, such as solving common problems and working together towards common goals. These cooperative experiences aimed to reduce intergroup tensions.

Notable Findings and Insights on Intergroup Conflict

The Robbers Cave Experiment yielded several important findings:

• Intergroup conflict emerged swiftly when groups were formed and exposed to competition, even among previously unacquainted individuals.
• The competition exacerbated stereotypes and prejudices between the groups.
• Cooperation between groups, when introduced strategically, had the potential to reduce hostilities and foster intergroup harmony.
• The study illustrated the role of superordinate goals (common objectives that transcended group boundaries) in promoting cooperation and reducing conflict.

Practical Applications and Contributions

The Robbers Cave Experiment has had lasting implications in the fields of social psychology and conflict resolution. It provided valuable insights into the dynamics of intergroup conflict and cooperation, shedding light on the processes by which hostility between groups can be both fueled and mitigated.

The concept of superordinate goals, derived from the study, has been widely applied in conflict resolution efforts. By identifying shared objectives that require collaboration across group lines, individuals and societies have been able to bridge divides and work together toward common aims. The study’s lessons have informed strategies for reducing prejudice, improving intergroup relations, and fostering peace in various contexts, including education, organizational management, and international diplomacy.

The Robbers Cave Experiment remains a classic illustration of how group identities and competition can lead to conflict, while also highlighting the potential for cooperation and reconciliation when shared goals and positive intergroup interactions are promoted.

The Zimbardo Stanford Prison Experiment

Overview of the Experiment

The Zimbardo Stanford Prison Experiment, conducted by psychologist Philip Zimbardo in 1971, is a widely recognized and controversial study in the realm of social psychology. The experiment was designed to investigate the psychological effects of perceived power and authority within a simulated prison environment.

In this study, participants were randomly assigned to play the roles of either guards or prisoners in a mock prison set up in the basement of Stanford University’s psychology department. The experiment aimed to explore how individuals, when placed in positions of power or vulnerability, would react and adapt to their roles.

Ethical Considerations and Criticisms

The Zimbardo Stanford Prison Experiment has been marred by significant ethical concerns and criticisms. The study generated intense psychological distress among participants, with the guards exhibiting abusive and authoritarian behaviors, and the prisoners experiencing emotional and psychological harm. The experiment’s duration, initially planned for two weeks, was terminated after only six days due to the extreme and unethical behaviors displayed by participants.

Critics argue that the study lacked proper informed consent, as participants were not fully aware of the potential psychological consequences of their involvement. The absence of proper oversight and safeguards to protect the well-being of participants has been a focal point of ethical critique.

Psychological Effects on Participants

The Zimbardo Stanford Prison Experiment had profound psychological effects on its participants. Guards, assigned to positions of power, quickly adopted authoritarian roles, displaying abusive behaviors toward the prisoners. Prisoners, on the other hand, experienced distress, humiliation, and a sense of powerlessness.

The psychological effects on participants were so severe that the study was terminated prematurely to prevent further harm. Post-experiment interviews revealed that some participants struggled to differentiate between their roles and their true identities, emphasizing the significant impact of situational factors on individual behavior.

Enduring Influence on Social Psychology

Despite its ethical controversies, the Zimbardo Stanford Prison Experiment had a lasting influence on the field of social psychology. It highlighted the malleability of human behavior in response to situational factors and the potential for ordinary individuals to engage in abusive actions when placed in positions of authority.

The study contributed to discussions on ethics in research and the responsibility of researchers to prioritize the well-being of participants. It also prompted further investigations into the psychology of power, authority, and obedience, leading to a deeper understanding of the complexities of human behavior within social contexts.

The Zimbardo Stanford Prison Experiment remains a cautionary tale in the annals of psychology, reminding researchers of the ethical imperative to protect participants and the enduring influence of situational factors on human behavior.

The Little Albert Experiment

Introduction to the Study

The Little Albert Experiment is a classic and ethically controversial study conducted by behaviorist John B. Watson and his graduate student Rosalie Rayner in 1920. The experiment aimed to investigate the process of classical conditioning, particularly the acquisition of phobias and emotional responses in humans.

The study is named after its subject, a 9-month-old boy known as “Little Albert.” It remains a notable case study in the field of psychology due to its ethical concerns and contributions to the understanding of learned behaviors.

Experiment Details and Ethical Concerns

In the Little Albert Experiment, Little Albert was exposed to a white rat, a rabbit, a dog, a monkey, and other stimuli. Initially, he displayed no fear or aversion to these objects. However, Watson and Rayner sought to condition an emotional response in Little Albert by pairing the presentation of these stimuli with a loud, frightening noise (produced by striking a suspended steel bar with a hammer). As a result of this pairing, Little Albert began to exhibit fear and distress in response to the previously neutral stimuli, particularly the white rat.

The ethical concerns surrounding this experiment are significant. Little Albert was not provided with informed consent, and his emotional well-being was disregarded. The study also lacked proper debriefing, and the long-term consequences of Little Albert’s conditioning were not addressed. The ethical standards of today would prohibit such a study from being conducted.

Conditioning Process and Long-Term Implications

The Little Albert Experiment demonstrated the principles of classical conditioning in humans. It illustrated how conditioned emotional responses, such as fear and anxiety, could be acquired through association with previously neutral stimuli. In this case, Little Albert learned to fear the white rat because it had been consistently paired with a loud, frightening noise.

The long-term implications of the study are less clear due to a lack of follow-up research on Little Albert. It remains unknown whether his conditioned fears persisted or how they may have impacted his later development. The study’s ethical shortcomings prevent a comprehensive assessment of its long-term effects.

Contemporary Perspectives on the Study

The Little Albert Experiment is viewed with skepticism and ethical concern from contemporary perspectives. It serves as a reminder of the importance of informed consent, debriefing, and the ethical treatment of research participants in psychological research. Ethical standards in research have evolved significantly since the time of the experiment, emphasizing the need to prioritize the well-being and rights of participants.

While the Little Albert Experiment contributed to the understanding of classical conditioning, it also serves as a cautionary tale about the ethical boundaries of research and the potential consequences of disregarding the psychological well-being of participants. Modern research ethics prioritize the protection and respect of individuals involved in psychological studies, ensuring that similar experiments would not be conducted today.

The Blue-Eyes/Brown-Eyes Exercise

Historical Context and Significance

The Blue-Eyes/Brown-Eyes Exercise is a landmark social experiment conducted by educator and activist Jane Elliott in the late 1960s. The experiment was born out of the civil rights movement in the United States and sought to address issues of racism, discrimination, and prejudice. Against the backdrop of racial tensions and the struggle for civil rights, Elliott designed the exercise to provide a firsthand experience of the effects of discrimination.

Experiment Design and Outcomes

In the Blue-Eyes/Brown-Eyes Exercise, Elliott divided her third-grade students into two groups based on eye color, designating one group as “superior” (those with blue eyes) and the other as “inferior” (those with brown eyes). Over the course of the exercise, Elliott systematically treated the two groups differently, providing privileges to the superior group while subjecting the inferior group to discrimination and negative stereotypes.

The results of the experiment were profound. Children in the inferior group quickly internalized their assigned role and began to exhibit lower self-esteem, diminished academic performance, and a range of negative emotional responses. On the other hand, those in the superior group displayed increased arrogance and a sense of entitlement.

Elliott conducted the exercise over multiple days, reversing the roles on the second day to provide a taste of both sides of discrimination. The exercise aimed to create empathy and understanding among participants by allowing them to personally experience the emotional and psychological impact of discrimination.

Broader Societal Impact and Implications

The Blue-Eyes/Brown-Eyes Exercise had a significant societal impact. It garnered attention in the media and brought issues of racism and discrimination to the forefront of public consciousness. Elliott’s work challenged prevailing beliefs about the nature of prejudice and discrimination, highlighting the role of societal conditioning in perpetuating such attitudes.

The exercise also emphasized the importance of empathy and perspective-taking in combatting racism and prejudice. By allowing participants to experience discrimination firsthand, Elliott aimed to foster greater empathy and understanding among individuals of different racial backgrounds.

Experimentation in Social Psychology

Experimentation definition.

Experimentation, in its simplest form, is a research method used to investigate the presence or absence of a causal relationship between two variables. This method involves systematically manipulating one variable, known as the independent variable, and then assessing the impact or effect of this manipulation on another variable, referred to as the dependent variable. Through experimentation, researchers aim to discern whether changes in the independent variable cause changes in the dependent variable, providing insights into causal relationships within a given phenomenon or context. This systematic and controlled approach allows for rigorous testing of hypotheses and the establishment of cause-and-effect relationships in scientific inquiry.

Importance and Consequences of Experiments

The importance and consequences of experiments in research are closely tied to their unique ability to establish causal relationships. Here are key features of experiments that facilitate the ability to draw causal conclusions and their implications:

• Establishing Causality: Experiments are highly valuable because they allow researchers to make statements about causality. By systematically manipulating the independent variable and assessing its impact on the dependent variable, researchers can infer that changes in the independent variable cause changes in the dependent variable. This cause-and-effect relationship is central to scientific inquiry and helps uncover the mechanisms underlying various phenomena.
• Directionality of Relationship: Experiments provide a clear temporal sequence where changes in the independent variable precede the assessment of the dependent variable. This temporal order is crucial for determining the directionality of the relationship between variables. In causal relationships, the cause must precede the effect. Experiments ensure that this criterion is met, enabling researchers to infer the causal direction.
• Random Assignment: In experiments, participants are randomly assigned to different experimental groups. Random assignment ensures that each participant has an equal chance of being assigned to any experimental condition, creating equivalent groups at the outset. This eliminates the possibility that pre-existing differences between participants could account for observed differences in the dependent variable. Random assignment strengthens the validity of causal claims by minimizing confounding variables.
• Isolation of Effects: Experiments enable researchers to isolate the effects of the independent variable by controlling all other aspects of the environment. This control ensures that all participants have a similar experience, except for the experimental manipulation. By eliminating extraneous variables, researchers can attribute any observed differences in the dependent variable solely to the independent variable. This isolation of effects enhances the internal validity of the study.

In summary, experiments are a powerful research method that allows for the establishment of causal relationships in scientific inquiry. Their ability to establish causality, ensure temporal precedence, employ random assignment, and isolate the effects of the independent variable makes experiments a cornerstone of empirical research. Researchers must adhere to these principles to draw valid and reliable conclusions about the causal relationships between variables, advancing our understanding of various phenomena in social psychology and other fields.

Some scholars have questioned the utility of experimentation, noting that the experiments which researchers design sometimes do not resemble the circumstances that people encounter in their everyday lives. However, experimentation is the only research method that allows one to definitively establish the existence of a causal relationship between two or more variables.

References:

• Goodwin, C. J. (2003). Research methods in psychology: Methods and design. New York: Wiley.
• Pelham, B. W. (1999). Conducting research in psychology: Measuring the weight of smoke. Pacific Grove,CA: Brooks/Cole.