Key Social Psychology Experiments

Why This Matters

Social psychology experiments are the backbone of Unit 4, and they appear constantly on the AP Psychology exam—in multiple-choice questions testing your recall of specific findings and in FRQs asking you to apply experimental conclusions to new scenarios. You're being tested on your understanding of how situational factors, authority, group dynamics, and cognitive processes shape human behavior, often in surprising ways. These experiments don't just describe what people do; they reveal the psychological mechanisms behind obedience, conformity, aggression, and helping behavior.

What makes these studies so exam-relevant is that they challenge common assumptions about human nature. The College Board wants you to understand that behavior isn't solely determined by personality or individual morality—context matters enormously. As you review each experiment, don't just memorize who conducted it and what happened. Ask yourself: What principle does this demonstrate? How does it connect to concepts like social influence, observational learning, or cognitive consistency? That's the thinking that earns you points.

---

Obedience and Authority

These experiments explore how legitimate authority figures can compel ordinary people to act against their own moral judgments. The key mechanism is the agentic state—when individuals defer responsibility to an authority figure, they become capable of actions they'd otherwise reject.

Milgram Obedience Experiment

• 65% of participants delivered maximum "shocks"—demonstrating that ordinary people will obey destructive orders from perceived authority figures, even when distressed
• Situational factors increased obedience—proximity to the authority figure, prestige of the institution (Yale), and physical separation from the "learner" all boosted compliance
• Agentic state explains the results—participants shifted responsibility to the experimenter, illustrating how diffusion of responsibility operates in hierarchical settings

Stanford Prison Experiment

• Terminated after six days due to guards' escalating abuse—Zimbardo's study showed how quickly assigned roles can override personal identity
• Situational power over disposition—participants weren't selected for aggressive traits, yet guards became cruel and prisoners became passive, supporting situational attribution
• Deindividuation contributed to behavior—uniforms, numbers instead of names, and institutional context reduced individual accountability

---

Conformity and Group Influence

These studies reveal how the mere presence of others—even strangers—can alter our perceptions, judgments, and actions. Normative social influence (wanting to fit in) and informational social influence (assuming others know better) drive conformity.

Asch Conformity Experiment

• 75% conformed at least once to obviously wrong answers about line lengths—demonstrating the power of group pressure even on objective tasks
• Normative influence was the primary driver—participants later reported they knew the group was wrong but didn't want to stand out or face social rejection
• Conformity dropped significantly when even one confederate dissented—showing that unanimity is crucial for maximum social pressure

Robbers Cave Experiment

• Intergroup conflict emerged rapidly between the Eagles and Rattlers through competitive activities—demonstrating how easily in-group/out-group bias develops
• Superordinate goals reduced hostility—cooperation on shared problems (fixing the water supply, pooling money for a movie) dissolved group boundaries
• Realistic conflict theory in action—competition for limited resources creates prejudice, while interdependence promotes harmony

---

Observational Learning and Modeling

Bandura's work demonstrated that learning doesn't require direct reinforcement—we acquire behaviors by watching others. This connects directly to Topic 3.9 and the attention-retention-reproduction-motivation model.

Bobo Doll Experiment

• Children imitated aggressive behavior they observed in adults—hitting, kicking, and verbally attacking the inflatable doll in the same ways the model had
• Vicarious reinforcement mattered—children who saw the model rewarded were most likely to imitate; those who saw punishment were less likely (but still learned the behavior)
• Challenges behaviorist assumptions—learning occurred without direct reinforcement to the child, supporting social learning theory over strict operant conditioning

---

Helping Behavior and Situational Barriers

These studies examine why people sometimes fail to help others in need, revealing that personality matters less than circumstances. Diffusion of responsibility and time pressure are key inhibiting factors.

Bystander Effect (Darley & Latané Research)

• Diffusion of responsibility is the core mechanism—when others are present, each individual feels less personal obligation to act
• Pluralistic ignorance compounds the effect—bystanders look to each other for cues, and if no one reacts, each assumes the situation isn't an emergency
• Helping increases when bystanders are alone, the victim is similar to them, or someone else models helping behavior—reversing the inhibiting factors

Good Samaritan Experiment (Darley & Batson)

• Time pressure dramatically reduced helping—seminary students rushing to give a talk on the Good Samaritan parable stepped over a person slumped in a doorway
• Situational factors trumped beliefs—even students thinking about helping others failed to help when hurried, demonstrating that context overrides disposition
• Only 10% of rushed participants helped compared to 63% of those with extra time—a striking demonstration of how minor situational variables shape moral behavior

---

Cognitive Consistency and Attitude Change

Festinger's work revealed that humans are motivated to maintain consistency between their beliefs and actions—and will change attitudes to resolve internal conflict. This connects to persuasion and attitude formation in social psychology.

Cognitive Dissonance Experiment (Festinger & Carlsmith)

• **$1 participants rated the task more enjoyable** than$20 participants—the smaller payment created greater dissonance between behavior (lying) and self-concept (honest person)
• Insufficient justification forced attitude change—with no external reason to explain their lie, participants internalized the message to reduce discomfort
• Counterintuitive finding challenges behaviorist reward principles—less reinforcement led to more attitude change, demonstrating the power of cognitive motivation

---

Research Methodology and Validity

These studies raise important questions about how we conduct and interpret psychological research—concepts that appear in the research methods portion of the exam.

Hawthorne Effect

• Participants alter behavior when observed—workers at the Hawthorne Works improved productivity simply because they knew they were being studied
• Demand characteristics are related—participants may try to confirm what they think researchers want, threatening internal validity
• Methodological implication—researchers must control for observation effects through techniques like naturalistic observation, deception, or single-blind designs

Rosenhan Experiment (On Being Sane in Insane Places)

• Pseudopatients were all diagnosed with mental illness despite displaying no symptoms after admission—exposing problems with psychiatric diagnostic reliability
• Confirmation bias in clinical settings—once labeled, normal behaviors were interpreted as pathological (writing notes became "writing behavior")
• Challenged construct validity of diagnostic categories—raised questions about whether mental illness labels reflect genuine conditions or institutional expectations

---

Quick Reference Table

---

Self-Check Questions

1. Both the Milgram experiment and the Stanford Prison Experiment demonstrate the power of situational factors—what is the key difference in the type of social influence each study examines?

2. If an FRQ describes a scenario where someone fails to help a person in distress at a crowded mall, which experiment provides the best explanation, and what specific mechanism would you cite?

3. How does the Festinger & Carlsmith finding that $1 participants changed their attitudes more than$20 participants challenge traditional behaviorist assumptions about reinforcement?

4. Compare the Asch conformity experiment and the Robbers Cave experiment: both involve group influence, but what distinguishes conformity within a group from intergroup conflict?

5. A researcher notices that participants in a study about stress seem calmer than expected. Using concepts from the Hawthorne Effect, explain what might be happening and suggest one methodological solution.