Category: Uncategorized

I have saved the best for last my friends. This experiment is my all time favorite experiment of all the ones that I have been taught throughout the years. Much similar to the experiment involving Pavlov’s dogs, John B Watson performed an experiment in 1913 in which classical conditioning was put to the test.

The experiment involved a 9- month old infant orphan boy, named Albert, and several items used as stimuli. The test started off by presenting Albert with a white rat and observing his response to the creature. Albert was surprisingly comfortable with the rat and approached it with open arms to play with. After this presentation of the rat, Watson showed Albert the same rat but at the same time created a loud noise just behind Albert’s head. This loud noise scared Albert and made him start to cry. After repetition of this process, Albert was then presented the rat just by itself, with no loud noise. Albert was terrified, he started screaming, crying, and tried to crawl away. Albert had shown that because of the added stimuli of the loud noise, he now associated the creature with such horror as well.

After this process had been tested. Watson wanted to test the theory of generalization. This is where Albert would associate items that looked much similar or even had a few similarities with the same horror he associated the rat with. This was tested by presenting Albert with a white family dog, a fur coat, even a Santa Claus mask. Albert showed the same fear that he did originally towards the rat to these objects.

This may seem very horrific and you may be questioning why I favor this experiment so much, but if you were to look at the psychological gains that were received through this experiment…you would understand. This experiment proved that emotions such as fear can be taught to individuals such as Albert. Watson once said: “Give me a dozen healthy infants, well-formed, and my own specified world to bring them up in and I’ll guarantee to take any one at random and train him to become any type of specialist I might select – doctor, lawyer, artist, merchant-chief and, yes, even beggar-man and thief, regardless of his talents, penchants, tendencies, abilities, vocations and the race of his ancestors” (Watson, 1924, p. 104). And it’s true! Through the use of classical conditioning, emotions, talents, even traits can be learned!

Now this experiment could never be done in present day due to ethical reasoning but for your own piece of mind I’ll have you know that Little Albert was shortly adopted after this experiment and his parents did reveal that he eventually came over his fears with time.

Watson, J. B. (1924). Behaviorism. New York: People’s Institute Publishing Company.

In 1964 a woman named Kitty Genovese was chased down, sexually assaulted, and murdered just feet away from her house. The man who did this horrific acts to her was Winston Moseley. Why I am talking about a murder case? Because during these events Kitty was able to scream fir help, and 38 witnesses were aware that it was taking place yet chose to do nothing to help the dying woman.

After the case, psychologists John Darley and Bibb Latané were curious how so many people were able to just stand back and wait for authorities to handle it. They devised an experiment called the ‘Bystander Apathy Experiment’ in which they recruited university students to participate. The students would each be talking to other participants in a discussion group; however, each participant had a separate room. In other words, the conversations would be taking place over microphones and speakers where either of the participants would not be able to physically see the person they are talking to.

Each participant is given two minutes to talk during their turn, they do not know that the other ‘participant’ they are talking to is a pre-recorded voice. The subject can be talking to one to five people, depending on their treatment condition. One of the voices is of an epileptic student who suffers from seizures. He confesses to the group that he suffers from such disease in his first turn of speaking to the group. On his second turn, the seizure starts. The pre-recorded voice sounded something like this:

“I’m… I’m having a fit… I… I think I’m… help me… I… I can’t… Oh my God… err… if someone can just help me out here… I… I… can’t breathe p-p-properly… I’m feeling… I’m going to d-d-die if…”

The participant being tested cannot see this person actually having a seizure, therefore can only hear his reactions. The study based its results off of how long it took the participant to get up, leave the room, and search for someone to help.

The results are shocking. Only 31% of people went to seek for help. Majority of people did not even bother to help this suffering man. Much of the results was based off of the treatment condition the participant was placed in. For example, a participant that was entered in a group with only one voice was more likely to go seek help compared to a participant who was in a group with 5 other voices.

It is said that there are two reasons as to why the participants did not react. One being that they felt as if there was a diffusion of responsibility. In other words, they felt as if other people could intervene and they are held less responsible. Second being that they are ignorant to the situation. The participants felt that because no one else was reacting, why should they?

I personally found these results to be incredibly disturbing. To think that someone could be dying and 38 people can report as witnesses, yet no one tried to intervene is incredible. A bystander can save a life, so when you see a situation happening and no one else is reacting, don’t stand back and wait for someone else to be brave. Intervene, because you might be saving someone’s life.

Sites I Used:

https://explorable.com/bystander-apathy-experiment

Just how valid are eye-witness testimonies? In 1974, it was tested by Elizabeth Loftus and John Palmer. The two psychologists set out to test if language can alter testimonies. There were two different experiments, both testing the same hypothesis.

Experiment One:

Forty-five students were asked to participate in a laboratory study in which they would be entered in one of five conditions. Each participant was to watch a film of a traffic accident provided to them, ranging in duration from 5 to 30 seconds. After watching the film, the participants were to describe what they witnessed. They were each asked a series of specific questions, with careful wording. The main focus question was “About how fast were the cars going when they ______ each other?” The blank represents where one of the five conditions would be placed. Each participant was asked that question but the missing verb could be any of the following: smashed, collided, bumped, hit, or contacted.

This was done to see if the change in the verb has an effect on the speed that the participants answered. Findings proved that the participants that were asked the question with the verb “smashed” reported that the cars were going faster than the participants who were asked with the verb “hit.”

Experiment Two:

145 students were shown a video of a car driving down a countryside and then in the last four seconds, the video showed a multiple car accident. After the video the students were asked questions about the film. 50 students were asked “how fast were the cars going when they hit each other?”, another 50 were asked the same questioned but the verb was replaced with “smashed”, similar to experiment one. The other 50 students weren’t asked any questions to serve as a control group.

One week after this setting, the students were asked to return and were asked if they saw broken glass in the accident scene. Results showed that the students who were originally asked the question with the verb “smashed” reported the broken glass twice as much as the students who were asked with the verb “hit.” The control group, which was not asked any questions, reported broken glass just as much as the group who were asked with the verb “hit.” Here are the results:

These studies cannot be exemplified as results of an actual eye-witness testimony due to the lack of a real traffic accident. Also, the participants are not considered general population because they were all students. However, these studies did prove that memory can be altered just by a change in a word, and that is pretty crazy if you ask me.

Sites Used:

http://www.simplypsychology.org/loftus-palmer.html

It is almost impossible to remember what we were like when we were babies due to infantile amnesia but if you were to ask your parents how you were in terms of attachment, you would be classified as one of three answers. These answers come from the famous experiment that I am currently learning about in my developmental psychology class. This experiment is known as ‘the strange situation test.’

This experiment was performed by Mary Ainsworth in 1967. The experiments lasted no more than a half hour and included the participants of a baby between the age of 12 and 18 months, the mother/ caregiver, and a stranger. The situation began with the mother, baby, and stranger entering a small room with a one-way glass mirror (to observe.) The mother would then be instructed to exit the room, leaving the baby alone with the stranger. After a period of time, the mother would return to the room. This reunion was a critical moment in the observation process in order to see how the baby reacted to the return of its mother.

With the observation, it was concluded that there are three types of attachment: secure, ambivalent, and avoidant. Secure attachment was proved when the baby was distressed when the mother left, and happy when she returned. Ambivalent attachment was proved when the baby was somewhat distressed when the mother left, and resistant when she returned. Avoidant attachment was proved when the baby was not distressed when the mother left, and showed no interest when she returned.

These attachment styles were also measured by the way the baby reacted with the stranger when the mother was not present in the room. If the baby was avoidant of the stranger when alone but friendly when the mother was present, the baby would be classified under secure. If the baby showed fear or anger towards the stranger, then the baby would be classified as ambivalent. Lastly, if the baby was okay and playful towards the stranger at all points in the experiment, the baby would be classified as avoidant.

Within the experiment, 70% of the infants showed secure attachment, 15% showed ambivalent, and 15% showed avoidant. These attachment styles stream from the baby’s’ temperament and the caregiver’s sensitivity and patience towards the baby. For example, if a caregiver is patient and sensitive towards a difficult baby then the secure attachment bond would form.

Many studies have been done similar to this that prove the results of this experiment valid. So ask your parents how you were when you were a baby, and what happened when they would leave the room. Maybe you will find out something you never knew about yourself!

Most of my information came from my notes, but here’s a link for more details!

http://www.simplypsychology.org/mary-ainsworth.html

The experiment used 50 male students form Swarthmore College in which all were asked to participate in a vision line judgment test. Asch placed one of the students in a room with seven other men. The task was controlled by the fact that the seven other men were aware of the experiment and had agreed upon their responses to the task. The student however did not know this and was lead to believe the others were regular participants as well.

The task was simple. In front of the men were two pictures. One of which had one vertical line on it. The second however had three different length vertical lines labeled A-C, like so:

With the two pictures in front of them, the men were asked to state out loud which line (A, B, or C) was the same size as the line on the other piece of paper. The answer was obvious and the student was placed on the end of the row, concluding him to answer last.

The experiment consisted of 12 trials in which the controlled men answered wrong and 6 trials in which they answered correctly. This was designed to see if the uncontrolled participant would conform to the others in the room because of majority view.

The results showed that overall, throughout all trials 32% of the participants conformed with the obvious wrong majority vote. On the 12 trials in which the controlled group answered incorrect, 75% of participants conformed at least one time.

In a controlled trial with no pressure from the other participants, less than 1% of the participants gave the incorrect answer.

This study proved that even though people are clearly aware of the correct answer, if there is a majority pressure, most people will conform to the majority answer. So why did the participants conform? In a post- experiment interview many of the participant’s claimed that they knew the answer was wrong but conformed because they didn’t want to be ridiculed by the others. Others stated they didn’t believe they were conforming and honestly thought the answer was correct. This proves the two major influences in the psychology department: normative and informational. Normative influence is when the person wants to fit in with others in the group and informational is when they believe that the group has more information than them.

Would you conform to the majority? Hard to say, right?

 

Sites I Used:

http://www.simplypsychology.org/asch-conformity.html

Harry Harlow is a famous American psychologist who studied human development and behaviors through the behavior of monkeys. Much of his research has made an incredible impact in the world of child psychology, which is why I recently learned all about this experiment in my developmental psychology class.
In his most famous experiment, Harlow wanted to test the effect the mother has on an infant. To test this theory, infant monkeys were separated from their mothers relatively quickly after birth and were raised by surrogate mothers. These surrogates, however, were very different and provided different necessities to the animals. Both the surrogates were the same size however one was nothing but wire while the other was covered with terry cloth. Both mothers were warmed with an electric lamp.
In one experiment both mothers were placed in the cage with the monkeys, but only one mother was equipped with a nursing nipple. Some monkeys were fed from the wire mom and some the terry cloth mother. Even when the wire mother was the source of nourishment, the monkeys spent a great deal of time with the terry cloth mother regardless of who was giving them milk.
In another trial, the surrogate mother was designed to ‘reject’ the infant monkey. Rejection was demonstrated through strong jets of air or blunt spikes forcing baby away. The reactions of the babies were quite amazing actually, after rejection, the monkeys would cling again to the mothers even tighter than they did before.
These trials proved that nourishment is more than just feeding, and the bond between a mother and child is not solely because of feeding but because of the time spent with the child.
The monkeys used in these experiments eventually became mothers themselves and were observed to see the effect their ‘childhood’ had on them. All of the mothers tended to be either indifferent towards their babies, or abusive. The indifferent mothers did not nurse, comfort, or protect their babies however they did not harm them either. The abusive mothers would violently bite, or otherwise injure their infants. Many of the babies from the abusive mothers died in this process. This proved that how you were mothered has a major impact on how you will be as a mother.
Despite the major findings in these experiments, Harlow received many criticisms of his work because of ethical treatment of animals. He did however make an impact on the world around him by doing these experiments. For example, because Harlow proved the importance of touch and bonding, many orphanages and institutions increased the amount of time they spent with the babies and were held by the staff much more than they were before.
Harlow did other experiments with the monkeys so feel free to research him and his studies. Just as a warning, some of them are very hard to watch if you have a soft spot for animals.

How can you not??

In 1902 psychologist Ian Pavlov tested a theory that dogs were equipped with certain responses in which they did not have to learn. From this theory he used classical conditioning to have dogs learn to salivate to just the mere sound of a bell. Sounds impossible right?

Well, what happened was… Pavlov started with testing dogs on how much they salivated to the presence of food in a dog food bowl. The salivation was measured with a device attached to the dog’s mouth. As you can imagine, every time the lab assistant came out with food, the dogs would start to salivate…nothing fancy. However, it came to the point where the lab assistant would approach the dogs and they would start to salivate, even though they didn’t have any food. This response was learned, which is what started the actual experiment.

After Pavlov discovered that these dogs have the capability to learn different stimuli, he tried presenting the dogs with something other than the person who had been giving them food for the past two weeks- he used a bell. So every time Pavlov feed the dogs, he also rang a bell while presenting the food. After continuous repetition of this combination, Pavlov tried the bell on its own. Pavlov rang the bell WITHOUT any food present and, as you probably assumed, the dogs salivated.

This may not sound interesting, but think about it this way, it’s common knowledge that in the beginning when the dogs salivated to the food it was considered a reflex. Then naturally without intent, the dogs learned to salivate to the assistant, therefore they created their own reflex. But what I find so interesting and honestly just amazing is that Pavlov taught the dogs to salivate to a bell. He taught them a reflex.

This is a very well-known study that actually appears in a popular comedy show called “The Office.” In the show one of the main characters, Jim, begins training his coworker, Dwight, with the sound of a computer shutting down. He conducts his mini experiment or prank by offering Dwight with an altoid (mint) every time he makes the computer sound. Eventually over time, Dwight would put his hand out for an altoid when he heard the computer sound even though Jim didn’t offer one. This of course was acted out, but just for some laughs and learning… enjoy!

 

Site for video: https://vimeo.com/35754924

Sites I used: http://www.simplypsychology.org/pavlov.html

 

Conforming to a situation. We all do it. It’s in our instincts to conform to what’s around us, right? Well this question was tested in 1973 by research psychologist Philip Zimbardo. This test was seen as one of the most unethical experiments ever done because of the severity it unleashed but let me fill you in on what happened.

The whole experiment started back when brutality in prisons was becoming an everyday report. Zimbardo wanted to see if the brutality by the guards was within their personalities to do so (e.g., sadistic), or if they were conforming to the situation at hand.

To create a realistic scenario, Zimbardo converted a basement in Stanford University into a mock prison that consisted of barred doors and windows as well as small cells with nothing but bare walls. There was also a room that mocked what solitary confinement rooms looked like in prison for those who ‘misbehaved.’ Zimbardo put advertisements out for participants which ended with the total of 24 male students who were each paid $15 a day for participating. Zimbardo took on the role of superintendent or ‘warden’ of the prison.

The experiment then took off. The subjects were randomly assigned whether they were a prisoner or a guard in the scenarios. Once assigned, reality set in. The prisoners were arrested in their homes, with no previous warning, booked at the local station and then taken to the ‘prison’ that Zimbardo had constructed. When they arrived at the prison they were striped and put into their uniforms, given ID numbers that they were now known as, and locked by chain at the ankle. All the guards were dressed the same: khaki clothes, sunglasses to avoid eye contact, a whistle, and clubs. No violence was permitted.

It took a very short period of time for both sides of this experiment (prisoners and guards) to set into their roles. Only hours into the experiment did the prisoners start harassing the prisoners. The prisoners held a rebellion in which they placed their beds against the barred cell door, for which they were reprimanded by getting fire extinguisher sprayed at them. The experiment was supposed to take place for two weeks however the experiment came to an early termination when Zimbardos lover was disgusted with what she saw. Zimbardo claims, “And she comes down and observes guards brutalizing prisoners with bags over their head, yelling, screaming, chaining their legs together…She begins to tear up, and runs out and says “I can’t look at this”  (StanfordDaily.)

Zimbardo realized that although his experiment was very important to psychological research, these people, these students were undergoing not only minor physical harm but serious emotional torture.

That’s it. It was over. However, this study did not fail. This experiment has taught us that people are easily ready to conform to social roles and that the whole uproar with the prison guard was very stereotypical and was indeed explained by situational factors.

While researching this, I found myself wondering what I would have done in either position and I honestly couldn’t come to an answer. Of course I would say I would never harm someone just because of a role I am supposed to play, but would that power go to my head? Would I try absolutely anything to get out of that cell even though I knew it was only an experiment. What do you think?

Sites I used:

http://www.simplypsychology.org/zimbardo.html

http://www.stanforddaily.com/2015/07/17/philip-zimbardo-reflects-on-the-stanford-prison-experiment-movie/

Temptation. We are tested by it everyday, whether it is what to eat for dinner or even whether or not you should go to class because your bed is just so…tempting. Walter Mischel and Ebbe B. Ebbesen tested this mind trick phenomena in 1970 to see just how controlling temptation really is.

The experiment consisted of 16 girls and 16 boys, ages ranging from 3 to 5 years old. Each subject was placed in a room consisting of a table with a single chair for them to sit at.  No toys, no windows, no distractions. Once the subjects were comfortable, an adult would come in the room with a a plate containing a single marshmallow on it. The adult explained to the child that they could eat that one marshmallow right now, or they could wait until the adult returned in 15 minutes and be rewarded with a second marshmallow. The adult then left the room and the child was all alone at a table with a marshmallow staring back at them.

Observations showed that some children would cover their eyes with their hands so they couldn’t see the tempting treat, others would start kicking the desk, tug on their hair, or stroke the marshmallow as if it were an animal. Then some of them ate the treat as soon as the adult left the room.

Overall 600 children participated in the experiment. Of that 600 only a minority ate the marshmallow immediately. Of those who attempted to delay, one third deferred gratification long enough to get the second marshmallow.

Mischel stated that age was a major contribution to the delay process because of the lack to comprehend that with waiting came a second reward.

This experiment rooted from Mischel noticing that different ethnic groups on the island of Trinidad had contrasting stereotypes about one another, specifically the others perceived self-control. The study in this matter was very similar to the marshmallow, however the marshmallow was replaced with a 1 cent candy. The children could accept the 1 cent candy immediately or receive a 10 cent candy in one week.

Results showed that Indian children showed far more ability to delay temptation compared to the African students.

Overall, the studies both proved the power of temptation and how weak the mind is to delay gratification. It is pondered at how the children in the marshmallow test were able to realize the power of distraction. The children who covered their eyes or refused to pay attention to the delicious treat in front of them, they were more likely to be able to put of the temptation.

Several follow up studies were conducted after the marshmallow test but they were all performed on children or smaller age group subjects. So it makes you wonder if the test were conducted on adults, what would the temptation be? Maybe money for gamblers…drugs for addicts… What do you think you wouldn’t be able to resist?

 

 

Hey readers! Just a little background to this blog since it is new to both you and me, I am going to be writing about some famous psychological experiments that I find interesting and hopefully you do too! Many of these experiments were done decades ago, and could not be preformed today because of ethical reasons, but each of these experiments have taught us a ton in the psychology world!

To start: The Milgram Experiment.

The experiments began in July 1961 at Yale University, preformed by psychologist Stanley Milgram. The experiment  started only 3 months after that start of the trial on a Nazi war criminal. Stanley intended to answer the question of if the Nazi’s were actually accomplices or just simply following orders.

The experiment contained three participants; each with a particular role: the experimenter, the teacher (volunteer subject), and the learner (pretend volunteer.) Both the teacher and learner drew slips of paper that listed their role in the experiment. The trick was that both slips contained the teacher role, so the pretend volunteer would always claim they received the learner role. The two participants were then placed in different rooms where they were able to communicate but could not see one another.

The teacher was given a list of word pairs that they were to teach the other subject. After the ‘lesson’, the teacher would then ask questions that required a correct or incorrect answer. When the learner answered the question incorrectly, the teacher was instructed to administer a shock to the learner, increasing 15 volts with every incorrect answer. The teacher was to believe that the other subject was receiving actual shocks, however no shocks were administered.

After several “shocks”, the learner started banging on the wall and screaming in pain. If the subject wished to stop the experiment, the experimenter would give several verbal commands such as “Please continue”, “The experiment requires that you continue, or “You have no other choice, you must go on.” If the subject still wished to be done, the experiment would be concluded, otherwise the experiment ended after the subject had given the max 450-volt shock three times to the pretend volunteer.

Many subjects would continue if they were told that no tissue damage was being done or that if anything were to happen to the other subject, the experimenter would be held responsible.

The experiment resulted in 65 percent of the experiment participants (teachers) administered the experiments final max 450-volt shock, even if they were uncomfortable doing so. At some point, every participant paused and questioned the experiment and showed signs of tension and stress such as sweating, trembling, and stuttering.

This concluded MIlgram’s theory stating that the power of obedience can over power even the best of morals. Even the most ordinary people do not have the resources to resist authority.

Several other psychologists preformed similar experiments in other parts of the world and received very similar results. Many people criticized this experiment on an ethical standpoint because of the psychological damage that could be done on the volunteer subjects. For example; many of the subjects were under the impression they were killing the other subject which can result in extreme emotional stress. Milgram argued these accusations by stating that people were only criticizing because his experiment revealed the disturbing truths of human nature.

This experiment proved that authority has an incredible impact on the human mind. So what would you do? Would you be obedient and shock a complete stranger because you were told to do so? Of course you are going to say no, but the power of authority is stronger than you think.