Hello and welcome to the last “Psychology Experiments” blog! For today’s topic,I found a more dramatic type of experiment done in 1968 by John Darley and Bibb Latané. It is known as the Bystander Effect. It all started years after the brutal murder of 28 year old Catherine “Kitty Genovese”. 

On March 13, 1964, Kitty Genovese came home from work and was approached by a male ( Winston Mosley) at her apartment door. She was immediately attacked and stabbed her. This reason this tragedy was so important was because it played as an example of how bystanders react. For those who aren’t familiar with the definition, the bystander effect is “ the inhibiting influence of the presence of others on a person’s willingness to help someone in need.” In this incident, Genovese continuously called for help, but unfortunately nobody came to her rescue. Nobody even tried to call the police until 3:50 which was approximately 30 minutes after the incident happened. Two weeks after the crime, it was reported in The New York Times  that around 38 individuals claimed to have either seen or heard Winston Mosley attack Genovese on 3 other occasions. Sadly all 38 bystanders failed to notify authorities right away. Instead, witnesses waited until she died. 

This is what caused John Darley and Bibb Latané to test whether bystanders in an emergency take action to help those in trouble. Psychologists predicted that this depended upon the numbers of other witnesses present during the situation.

In one experiment, participants were separated between 3 different conditions. One treatment consisted of the participants being alone. Another condition an individual would be placed with 2 other participants. Lastly, the participant would be placed with 2 people who are pretending to be volunteers.

In a room, the participants were placed in a waiting area to fill out a questionnaire when suddenly smoke began to fill the room. In the end, about 75% of the participants who were alone reported the strange smoke to the experimenters. In the second condition, 38% of those who were with 2 other people reported the smoke. In the final group, it was reported that only 10% reported the smoke after first ignoring the smoke.

With so much knowledge gained, the psychologists started to understand how behavior is greatly influenced by the specific situation. This tragedy remained an example and led to finding new research on what the psychologists called bystander intervention.

With that being said, I hope I’ve introduced some new psychology experiments to you and I also hope that you at least learned some new material. I enjoyed sharing my interests with everyone.

Sources:

https://www.verywellmind.com/the-bystander-effect-2795899

https://www.britannica.com/topic/bystander-effect

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/bystander-effect%3famp

For this week’s passion blog, I wanted to focus on the developmental aspect of psychology. In 1959, psychologists Eleanor Gibson and Richard Walk wanted to find out more about depth perception. Specifically, they wanted to test if infants are naturally born with depth perception or whether it’s a learned behavior. In order to carry this experiment out, Gibson and Walk conducted what is known as The Visual Cliff Experiment at Cornell University. 

To start the experiment, approximately 36 infants aged between 6 and 14 months were chosen to participate.  Each infant was placed on one end of a platform while their parent or guardian awaits at the other end of the cliff illusion. Two possible assumptions were made about depth perception in babies regarding this experiment. First, if an infant has developed depth perception, they will hesitate or refuse to crawl to their parent or guardian. However, babies who still lacked depth perception would happily crawl to their parent or guardian since they can’t see the cliff.

It was concluded by the psychologists that the ability to visualize depth must begin around the time infants start to crawl. I could understand why they would make this assumption. It only makes sense because depth perception almost seems like it plays a role in survival. Instead, it was learned that overtime as babies experience bumps, scrapes, and falls from heights for example causes fear.

So much more knowledge was gained from this one experiment and several studies were later conducted. Adding to that, a study conducted in 2013 assumed that younger children didn’t yet develop depth perception while the older children developed it. 6 and 10 month old babies proved this assumption. This study revealed the 6 month olds crawled their way through the visual edge while the 10 month old babies refused to cross. An even later experiment was done in 2014. This time, researchers found out that children as early as 3 months could see the visual cliff. This was observed after the children were placed over the edge. Immediately the 3 month year old responses showed increased heart rates, increased breathing rates, and widened eyes. Regardless of the year and information gathered, one question still remained unclear. Why are children willing to crawl off the cliff if they can sense and perceive depth. It was learned that younger children fail to realize the consequences of crossing the visual cliff. Young infants do not realize that falling is the outcome of crawling across the cliff when trying to reach their parent or guardian. Overtime, this is something that is learned when the child goes through enough experience to understand consequences. 

sources:

https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-a-visual-cliff-2796010

Visual Cliff Experiment (Gibson & Walk, 1960)

Today, I wanted to take some time to show my love for kids. I usually enjoy experiments with kids involved because you never know what their imagination might lead them to say or do. An experiment done by a psychologist named Walter Mischel in 1972  tested delayed gratification in children with the use of delicious treats- marshmallows and pretzels. Just imagine how tempting this must be for a young child. The main goal was to associate the ability to delay gratification with success later in life. 

http://https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yo4WF3cSd9Q

In the Marshmallow Test Experiment, a series of trials were done. In the first experiment, approximately over 50 children were recruited from the Stanford University nursing school. Beforehand, Mischel as well as his other researchers spent some time with the kids so they could get familiar and comfortable with being around new people. From that point, children were randomly assigned to 1 of 5 different groups labeled A through E. After groups were assigned the kids were taken in separate rooms and first taught how to ring a bell to signal for an adult once they left the room. 

To start the first test off, groups A, B, and C were shown a marshmallow and a pretzel. They were asked to pick which snack was their favorite. Each child was then given the news that the experimenter would leave temporarily. Also the children learned that they could possibly get their preferred snack if they were patient enough to wait for the experimenter to come back without using the bell to signal the experimenter. The kids had the option of using the bell signal, however this would instead result in the child earning the snack he/she least favored. With all the information and instructions given, it was time for the experimenter to leave and both treats were left in front of the kids. After about 15 minutes, the children who waited received their preferred treat while the children who couldn’t wait earned their second option as a reward. 

You might be thinking.. “What happened to groups D and E”? Well, children in both of those groups were given no instructions and information like the other groups. Instead, they earned the right to play with toys if they waited 15 minutes. 

In the end, Walter Mischel learned the importance of the ability of waiting for gratification. It is an essential skill that forms early in everyone’s lives and can help with success in the future. 

Sources Used:

https://www.verywellmind.com/interesting-social-psychology-experiments-2795916

https://www.simplypsychology.org/marshmallow-test.html

Watch the video above to see a modern day marshmallow test with kids!

http://https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_O60TYAIgC4

In this week’s blog, I want to discuss an experiment conducted by Harry Harlow known as the Surrogate Mother Experiment. From 1957 to 1963, this study was conducted at the University of Wisconsin. Several controversial experiments had been done throughout these years, however Harlow’s focus was on showing the importance of a mother’s love. His belief was that a mother’s nurturing love promotes healthy childhood development. He wanted to prove those wrong who thought affection served no purpose in the lives of children. It was common for people around that time to have strange beliefs such as “affection only leads to diseases and psychological issues”. 

To conduct this experiment, infant monkeys were separated from their mothers at birth and instead left raised by their ‘surrogate mothers’. Specifically, surrogate A was made out of wire with food (milk) attached to it. On the other hand, surrogate B was made out of a soft fabric without food attached to it. 

After presenting both to the monkey subjects, Harlow noted that the monkeys preferred surrogate B rather than surrogate A a majority of the time. The monkeys only went to surrogate A if they needed food. Overall comfort and was preferred over the food! 

To further prove his hypothesis, Harlow later did research that tested fear, security, and attachment in the baby monkeys. Similar to a study done by Mary Ainsworth, Harlow carried out what would be known as a ‘strange situation’ technique in psychology. The monkeys had the freedom of roaming a room with either their surrogate mother or simply by themselves. The little monkeys who were in the presence of the cloth surrogate used it for security while curiously exploring the room. In contrast, when the monkeys went in the room without the comforting surrogate mother during their time of exploration, they would “often freeze up, crouch, rock, scream, and cry” according to Harlow. Even in scary/unpleasant situations the monkeys would run to their surrogate mother to feel secure. This additional study and learned information proved that love and affection are vital in the lives and development of young children.

Psychologists like Harry Harlow can be thanked for significant changes in child care services ( orphanages, adoption agencies, social service organizations, etc.) Because of his findings, people began to look at affection and love in a more positive way. Even today, Harlow’s work continues to contribute to today’s understanding of human behavior.

Sources used: 

https://www.verywellmind.com/harry-harlow-and-the-nature-of-love-2795255

https://www.psychologicalscience.org/publications/observer/obsonline/harlows-classic-studies-revealed-the-importance-of-maternal-contact.html

Hello! Today’s blog is focused on the Milgram Shock Experiment conducted by psychologist Stanley Milgram at Yale University. It’s best known for its conflict between compliance to authority and personal conscience. 

http://https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOYLCy5PVgM

Back in 1963, Milgram examined the trial of Adolf Eichmann which caused a hypothesis to arise about the Holocaust. Milgram wanted to know if the reason for the killings in World War II was simply because Germans were obedient towards those in command. In order to conduct this experiment, Milgram put an advertisement in a newspaper that asked for male participants to engage in a study. Each volunteer was told that the purpose of the experiment was to examine the effects of punishment on learning abilities. Also a reward was guaranteed at the end for participation. What everyone didn’t know was that the experiment was rigged! To better explain, the participants were paired with another individual in which a ‘raffle’ was done to see who would act as the ‘learner’ and ‘teacher’ of the experiment. However, Milgram fixed the draw which caused the participants to be the teacher while the ‘learner’ pretended to be an actual participant. The ‘learner’ in the experiment was taken into another room with electrodes attached to their upper limbs. On the other hand, the ‘teacher’ ( participants) were kept in another room with an electric shock generator that had extremely high voltage. 15 volts being a light shock and 375 volts being the top, severe shock. Next, it was Milgram’s job duty to see just how far the participants would go when it comes to obeying orders from a superior even if it means hurting another individual. To get the study started, the ‘learner’ was given a list of paired words to recall. The participants also known as the teachers were then told to name a word from the list in which the ‘learner’ would respond with the word’s pair. Each mistake results in a shock and every time the shock would increase. The ‘learner’ purposely gave incorrect answers to see what the ‘teacher’ would do. If the teacher refused to do something, they were forced to continue the experiment. After everything was observed, Milgram noted that approximately ⅔ or 65% of the participants continued the experiment all the way until they reached 450 volts. Adding to that, all of the participants reached 300 volts. These results showed that many people are likely to comply with orders given by an authority figure even when someone else is put under danger. His hypothesis was proven also through several other studies that he conducted after the fact. I thought this was an interesting experiment that revealed how the average human acts towards higher authority regardless of the circumstances. 

Sources Used:

Stanley Milgram Shock Experiment

https://www.verywellmind.com/the-milgram-obedience-experiment-2795243

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7KU5u75J8VU

(Click the link to watch a visual)

Welcome back to another ‘Psychology Experiment’ blog! Today, I wanted to discuss an experiment that I wasn’t too familiar with myself. It also reminded me of the “Class Divided” experiment that I introduced weeks ago in a previous blog in which 2 groups were observed based upon their behaviors towards one another. 

In 1954 researchers Muzafer and Carolyn Sherif decided to conduct an experiment at the University of Oklahoma to study the development of group conflict.  A total of 22 young males (approximately aged 11-12 years old) with similar class and intelligence were arranged into 2 different groups. Each group was taken to their own summer camp area within the same establishment. Over time, the little boys were able to build friendships and bonds within their group —completely unaware about each other’s group. This secret went on for an entire week! Imagine not knowing about another group’s existence at the same summer camp facility. Soon after, both groups were allowed to have contact with each other. When introduced to each other, hostility and discriminatory acts were revealed between the young males.

Let’s look at how the researchers organized the experiment over a span of 3 weeks:

Stage 1 (Group Formation):

This stage was included as a way of identifying distinctive individuals within their own groups. For example each group engaged in activities such as hiking and swimming. Immediately, roles were assigned and leaders were picked by both groups. To take things a step further, the groups even chose unique names for themselves. 

Stage 2 ( Intergroup competition):

This is the stage where the groups were finally able to meet. The goal of this specific stage is to observe the attitudes of the boys when forced to compete with one another. To increase the rivalry tension, a trophy was granted to the overall winning team from the activities. Verbal and physical attacks among each other became very common. 

Stage 3 ( Cooperation):

Finally, the last strategy consisted of both groups coming together to fix serious situations (ex: broken down supply truck, water supply shortage). In contrast from the previous stages, this final stage created harmony within the camp. New bonds initiated the desire to travel on the same bus together after the experiment was completed. 

These 3 combined stages helped prove that people can overcome prejudice conflicts with the help of cooperation. This was a classic social psychology experiment that revealed how inconvenient situations make people act aggressively.

Sources Used:

http://psychology.iresearchnet.com/social-psychology/social-psychology-experiments/robbers-cave-experiment/

https://www.thoughtco.com/robbers-cave-experiment-4774987

https://www.simplypsychology.org/robbers-cave.html

http://https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqNaLerMNOE

Hello and welcome back to the “Psychology Experiments” series! Today I’m especially excited to touch base on a huge controversy in psychology -the nature vs. nurture debate. Specifically, it’s called the Bobo doll experiment that was conducted by Albert Bandura back in the 1960’s. Bandura’s goal was to prove that human behaviors are based upon social imitation instead of inherited genetic factors. The main question was: Are aggression and violence learned behaviors? 

The Bobo Doll experiment involved children being exposed to either an aggressive adult model or a non- aggressive adult model. Then, the children were closely observed to see whether or not they would mimic the actions that were revealed to them early on. In order to successfully do this, Bandura gathered 36 boys and 36 girls with ages that ranged between 3 and 6 years old. Out of the total 8 experimental groups, 24 children were put into a control group in which no aggression from an adult is shown towards the blowup doll. Furthermore, the 24 individuals were divided by gender in order to test out a few hypotheses that were made about girls and boys. One of many assumptions was for example  that boys would be way more aggressive than the females in the experiment. 

Individually, each child was brought into a play area with various toys and activities. Soon after, an adult model (non-aggressive) was brought into the room to sit and play with a set of toys. The whole time the adult Ignored the Bobo doll and instead focused on different activities. In contrast, the aggressive adult model came into the room and violently attacked the doll in front of the child. Not only was physical aggression used, but also verbal phrases were repeated. 

After about ten minutes, each individual was then taken into another room filled with more tempting toys. The rules were that the children were limited to 2 minutes to play with the toys. Meaning after the time was up, no more play time. Bandura included this in hopes of building up aggression and violence in the children to see how they would react. Finally after being taken into the last experimental room, the young participants were surrounded by a number of “aggressive-like” toys as well as “non- aggressive” toys. The time limit during this period was 20 minutes which revealed the results of the experiment. 

Most of the assumptions Bandura came up with initially were correct in the end. He proved that children who were put into the control group did in fact imitate the behaviors exposed by the adult models. These satisfying results supported his social learning theory and he even took a step further and did a follow up study. Hopefully after reading this you know about Bandura’s well known experiment and how he influenced researchers today. 

Sources Used:

https://www.verywellmind.com/bobo-doll-experiment-2794993

Bandura’s Bobo Doll Experiment on Social Learning

https://www.britannica.com/event/Bobo-doll-experiment

Hello and welcome back to another psychology experiment blog! Today I’m especially excited to discuss an experiment done by psychologist Philip Zimbardo in 1971. It’s one of the most famous studies in the history of psychology. If you still don’t know.. it’s called the Stanford Prison Experiment! Zimbardo was curious about the impact of situational variables on human behavior. The main question was: How would the participants react when placed in a simulated prison environment? In order to do this, researchers created a “fake” prison in the basement of a psychology building at Stanford University. From there, 75 undergraduate students who applied were given personality tests and interviewed. After much judgment, 24 men were chosen to act out the roles of prisoners and guards. You may be wondering – what was so special about the 24 men that were chosen? These 24 volunteers were specifically chosen because of a few factors including no criminal background, no serious medical issues, and lack of mental issues. A bonus was that each day the participants would earn $15 each day while taking part in the experiment. 

If an individual was randomly selected to be a prisoner then they would get the full experience! Basically, the participants labeled prisoners in the experiment were treated as if they were real criminals. For instance, they were arrested, fingerprinted, stripped, etc. After the long process, the prisoners were taken to the prison. Upon arrival, they were asked to individually strip and give up personal possessions in return for a uniform and bedding. Each individual was identified by a number to keep information anonymous. These numbers were also present on their uniforms. Uniforms consisted of a smock with no underclothes, nylon cap, and chain wrapped around an ankle. Those who were chosen to play the role of the guards all wore khaki attire with a whistle and billy club weapon. It was also preferred that guards wore dark sunglasses to make eye contact with prisoners impossible to do. Guards were expected to discipline whenever they felt was necessary however, violence was not an option. The behaviors of both groups were observed. 

Not much time passed until guards and prisoners started to feel comfortable with their specific role. This was especially true for the guards! Some guards were seen aggressively harassing a few of the prisoners. Guards did things like blast their whistles in the middle of the night to take excessive amounts of counts. Similarly, prisoners also began to reveal realistic prisoner- like behaviors. The prisoners acted as if being obedient to the prison’s rules would benefit them in some tremendous way. 

Overall it was noted that guards dehumanized prisoners with physical punishment. Prisoners showed signs of stress and anxiety just after a few days. The experiment couldn’t even last the full 14 days it was expected to, but instead it went on for 6 days due to the outrageous behaviors. The Stanford Prison Experiment showed that because the guards were given a powerful role, they acted in unusual ways compared to their real life behaviors. In contrast, prisoners ended up with feelings of depression and passive moods due to lack of control.

Hope you enjoyed this week’s blog as I continued the with the theme of prisons on also my RCL blog. Until next time!

http://https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XN2X72jrFk

http://https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyDDyT1lDhA

Welcome Back! I’m here again this week to talk about the well-known and interesting experiments done by Solomon Asch throughout the 1950’s. The Polish-American psychologist conducted an experiment to understand the amount of social pressure it takes in order for an individual to conform in a classroom setting. Conformity is “a type of social influence involving a change in belief or behavior in order to fit in with a group”. Asch picked seven men in which all agreed on the same responses to questions regarding line segments. To make things interesting, an additional ‘real’, naive participant was included without any knowledge about the experiment! The naive individual was told this was all part of a vision test. That particular individual would be considered the control in the experiment. As they each sat in a line, the participants were asked to compare line segments A, B, and C to the original ‘target’ line. These instructions were applied to all 50 of the males who got the opportunity to go through this trial.

Each individual gave their same response and it all came down to the real participant’s answer who sat at the very end of the line. The experiment involved asking about eighteen different questions, but twelve of which were purposely answered incorrectly in hopes of seeing if the real participant would answer the same anyway. Imagine how it feels to be the only person with a different answer! I know for a fact that I, too would be a little confused on whether I’m wrong since everybody else shared the same answers repeatedly. 

After trying the experiment out a few times, Solomon concluded that a majority of the time the real participant agreed with the others even if they knew the answer was incorrect. Questions sparked as Asch wanted to know why the participants were so easily tricked into conforming.  To further understand, the ‘real’ participant would be interviewed. It was said that the reason behind their choices was because they felt strange for being the only individual with a different answer from the rest of the group. They were fearful that they would be looked upon as being different. Other people claimed that they actually thought the answers the others picked were correct. To further test this theory, the same participants were asked to write down their answers individually. When the ‘real’ participants didn’t have to give their answer aloud, but instead of the paper it was found that their answers were correct and different.  So, it was clear that these two findings explained why people tend to conform when being involved with a group of people. 

Websites Used:

Solomon Asch Conformity Line Experiment Study

https://www.verywellmind.com/the-asch-conformity-experiments-2794996

Hello and Welcome to the first blog in the Psychology Experiments series! I wanted to discuss an experiment that still has relevance to today’s issues in society. Specifically I am going to describe a study conducted in 1968 by a school teacher named Jane Elliot. For those who aren’t familiar, it’s known as “A Class Divided” experiment. This experiment was conducted at a critical time in history. After the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr., Jane Elliot was inspired to reveal an important point about life to her students. Using previous knowledge you probably know that a common issue back then was racism and segregation, so the goal was to show everyone how it feels to be discriminated against and how it affects others.  

Jane Elliot started off by dividing her class by eye color (specifically blue and brown). At the start of the experiment, the kids with blue eyes were given the impression that they were superior to those with brown eyes. She described them as being smarter, nicer, and more organized. Adding to that, she showed favoritism to the blue eyed students for the rest of the day. They were wrongly granted the right of cutting the lines and having extra recess time. On the other hand, the brown eyed students were strictly scolded by Elliot and were forced to wear collars around their necks as if they were some sort of animals. On the second day of the continued experiment, roles were reversed making the brown eyed children dominant for that day instead of the blue eyed group. 

Of course after this two day experiment was over, students began to realize the true meaning behind the exercise. Elliot observed that when each group was labeled as being inferior to the other they would actually behave and look the part. With that being said, you can probably guess what happened when each group was labeled superior. This title caused them to behave in absurd ways- even those who she said were sweet. It caused the students to become mean and discriminate towards the other group in as little as fifteen minutes. Jane Elliot felt as if she recreated the ways of society in her own third grade classroom. Years after, she continued to carry out the experiment with similar results each time. This simple, yet meaningful experiment allowed each group to see what it felt like to be looked upon as inferior. Which only caused the students to become closer with one another. This was a great exercise for students to learn at an early age to never judge by skin color, but rather by one’s inside characteristics. 

Extra Info: Jane Elliot also decided to try and test out her experiment in a different institution. The same study was done for the employees of a prison in Iowa where she too found that adults acted the same as children did. It was a way to show jail employees how to treat the inmates.

Sources Used:

Introduction