experimental approach in social psychology

Experimental Social Psychology

• Living reference work entry
• First Online: 17 April 2024
• Cite this living reference work entry

• Wang Hui 2 ,
• Shen Decan 3 &
• Wu Mingzheng 4  

Experimental social psychology is a branch of social psychology researching social psychological phenomena through experimental methods.

Brief History

Since German psychologist Wilhelm Wundt founded psychological laboratory at Leipzig University in 1879, many psychologists have brought issues related to social psychology into laboratories and gradually developed experimental social psychology. American psychologists Gardner Murphy and Lois Barclay Murphy were among the first who have adopted the concept of experimental social psychology. They wrote in the book Experimental Social Psychology (1931) that social psychologists have adopted various experimental methods to collect materials in an effort to establish social psychology as an experimental science.

Research Contents

The earliest social psychology experiments can be traced back to 1898 by the American psychologist Norman Triplett’s research on the influence of the presence of others and competition on individual behavior, known...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Further Reading

Aronson E, Wilson TD, Akert RM (2014) Social psychology, 8th edn. Pearson India Education Services, Chennai

Google Scholar  

Yue G-A (2013) Social psychology, 2nd edn. China Renmin University Press, Beijing

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Guanghua School of Management, Peking University, Beijing, China

School of Psychological and Cognitive Sciences, Peking University, Beijing, China

Department of Psychology and Behavioral Sciences, Hangzhou, China

Wu Mingzheng

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wu Mingzheng .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Hui, W., Decan, S., Mingzheng, W. (2024). Experimental Social Psychology. In: The ECPH Encyclopedia of Psychology. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-6000-2_754-1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-6000-2_754-1

Received : 23 March 2024

Accepted : 25 March 2024

Published : 17 April 2024

Publisher Name : Springer, Singapore

Print ISBN : 978-981-99-6000-2

Online ISBN : 978-981-99-6000-2

eBook Packages : Springer Reference Behavioral Science and Psychology Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Experimental Method In Psychology

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.

On This Page:

The experimental method involves the manipulation of variables to establish cause-and-effect relationships. The key features are controlled methods and the random allocation of participants into controlled and experimental groups .

What is an Experiment?

An experiment is an investigation in which a hypothesis is scientifically tested. An independent variable (the cause) is manipulated in an experiment, and the dependent variable (the effect) is measured; any extraneous variables are controlled.

An advantage is that experiments should be objective. The researcher’s views and opinions should not affect a study’s results. This is good as it makes the data more valid  and less biased.

There are three types of experiments you need to know:

1. Lab Experiment

A laboratory experiment in psychology is a research method in which the experimenter manipulates one or more independent variables and measures the effects on the dependent variable under controlled conditions.

A laboratory experiment is conducted under highly controlled conditions (not necessarily a laboratory) where accurate measurements are possible.

The researcher uses a standardized procedure to determine where the experiment will take place, at what time, with which participants, and in what circumstances.

Participants are randomly allocated to each independent variable group.

Examples are Milgram’s experiment on obedience and  Loftus and Palmer’s car crash study .

• Strength : It is easier to replicate (i.e., copy) a laboratory experiment. This is because a standardized procedure is used.
• Strength : They allow for precise control of extraneous and independent variables. This allows a cause-and-effect relationship to be established.
• Limitation : The artificiality of the setting may produce unnatural behavior that does not reflect real life, i.e., low ecological validity. This means it would not be possible to generalize the findings to a real-life setting.
• Limitation : Demand characteristics or experimenter effects may bias the results and become confounding variables .

2. Field Experiment

A field experiment is a research method in psychology that takes place in a natural, real-world setting. It is similar to a laboratory experiment in that the experimenter manipulates one or more independent variables and measures the effects on the dependent variable.

However, in a field experiment, the participants are unaware they are being studied, and the experimenter has less control over the extraneous variables .

Field experiments are often used to study social phenomena, such as altruism, obedience, and persuasion. They are also used to test the effectiveness of interventions in real-world settings, such as educational programs and public health campaigns.

An example is Holfing’s hospital study on obedience .

• Strength : behavior in a field experiment is more likely to reflect real life because of its natural setting, i.e., higher ecological validity than a lab experiment.
• Strength : Demand characteristics are less likely to affect the results, as participants may not know they are being studied. This occurs when the study is covert.
• Limitation : There is less control over extraneous variables that might bias the results. This makes it difficult for another researcher to replicate the study in exactly the same way.

3. Natural Experiment

A natural experiment in psychology is a research method in which the experimenter observes the effects of a naturally occurring event or situation on the dependent variable without manipulating any variables.

Natural experiments are conducted in the day (i.e., real life) environment of the participants, but here, the experimenter has no control over the independent variable as it occurs naturally in real life.

Natural experiments are often used to study psychological phenomena that would be difficult or unethical to study in a laboratory setting, such as the effects of natural disasters, policy changes, or social movements.

For example, Hodges and Tizard’s attachment research (1989) compared the long-term development of children who have been adopted, fostered, or returned to their mothers with a control group of children who had spent all their lives in their biological families.

Here is a fictional example of a natural experiment in psychology:

Researchers might compare academic achievement rates among students born before and after a major policy change that increased funding for education.

In this case, the independent variable is the timing of the policy change, and the dependent variable is academic achievement. The researchers would not be able to manipulate the independent variable, but they could observe its effects on the dependent variable.

• Strength : behavior in a natural experiment is more likely to reflect real life because of its natural setting, i.e., very high ecological validity.
• Strength : Demand characteristics are less likely to affect the results, as participants may not know they are being studied.
• Strength : It can be used in situations in which it would be ethically unacceptable to manipulate the independent variable, e.g., researching stress .
• Limitation : They may be more expensive and time-consuming than lab experiments.
• Limitation : There is no control over extraneous variables that might bias the results. This makes it difficult for another researcher to replicate the study in exactly the same way.

Key Terminology

Ecological validity.

The degree to which an investigation represents real-life experiences.

Experimenter effects

These are the ways that the experimenter can accidentally influence the participant through their appearance or behavior.

Demand characteristics

The clues in an experiment lead the participants to think they know what the researcher is looking for (e.g., the experimenter’s body language).

Independent variable (IV)

The variable the experimenter manipulates (i.e., changes) is assumed to have a direct effect on the dependent variable.

Dependent variable (DV)

Variable the experimenter measures. This is the outcome (i.e., the result) of a study.

Extraneous variables (EV)

All variables which are not independent variables but could affect the results (DV) of the experiment. EVs should be controlled where possible.

Confounding variables

Variable(s) that have affected the results (DV), apart from the IV. A confounding variable could be an extraneous variable that has not been controlled.

Random Allocation

Randomly allocating participants to independent variable conditions means that all participants should have an equal chance of participating in each condition.

The principle of random allocation is to avoid bias in how the experiment is carried out and limit the effects of participant variables.

Order effects

Changes in participants’ performance due to their repeating the same or similar test more than once. Examples of order effects include:

(i) practice effect: an improvement in performance on a task due to repetition, for example, because of familiarity with the task;

(ii) fatigue effect: a decrease in performance of a task due to repetition, for example, because of boredom or tiredness.

Related Articles

Research Methodology

Metasynthesis Of Qualitative Research

Grounded Theory In Qualitative Research: A Practical Guide

Qualitative Data Coding

What Is a Focus Group?

Cross-Cultural Research Methodology In Psychology

What Is Internal Validity In Research?

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons

Margin Size

• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

11.4: Research Methods in Social Psychology

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 10665

• https://nobaproject.com/ via The Noba Project

\( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\)

\( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\)

\( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\)

\( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorA}[1]{\vec{#1}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorAt}[1]{\vec{\text{#1}}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorB}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorC}[1]{\textbf{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorD}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorDt}[1]{\overrightarrow{\text{#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectE}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash{\mathbf {#1}}}} \)

Kwantlen Polytechnic University

Social psychologists are interested in the ways that other people affect thought, emotion, and behavior. To explore these concepts requires special research methods. Following a brief overview of traditional research designs, this module introduces how complex experimental designs, field experiments, naturalistic observation, experience sampling techniques, survey research, subtle and nonconscious techniques such as priming, and archival research and the use of big data may each be adapted to address social psychological questions. This module also discusses the importance of obtaining a representative sample along with some ethical considerations that social psychologists face.

learning objectives

• Describe the key features of basic and complex experimental designs.
• Describe the key features of field experiments, naturalistic observation, and experience sampling techniques.
• Describe survey research and explain the importance of obtaining a representative sample.
• Describe the implicit association test and the use of priming.
• Describe use of archival research techniques.
• Explain five principles of ethical research that most concern social psychologists.

Introduction

Are you passionate about cycling? Norman Triplett certainly was. At the turn of last century he studied the lap times of cycling races and noticed a striking fact: riding in competitive races appeared to improve riders’ times by about 20-30 seconds every mile compared to when they rode the same courses alone. Triplett suspected that the riders’ enhanced performance could not be explained simply by the slipstream caused by other cyclists blocking the wind. To test his hunch, he designed what is widely described as the first experimental study in social psychology (published in 1898!)—in this case, having children reel in a length of fishing line as fast as they could. The children were tested alone, then again when paired with another child. The results? The children who performed the task in the presence of others out-reeled those that did so alone.

Although Triplett’s research fell short of contemporary standards of scientific rigor (e.g., he eyeballed the data instead of measuring performance precisely; Stroebe, 2012), we now know that this effect, referred to as “ social facilitation ,” is reliable—performance on simple or well-rehearsed tasks tends to be enhanced when we are in the presence of others (even when we are not competing against them). To put it another way, the next time you think about showing off your pool-playing skills on a date, the odds are you’ll play better than when you practice by yourself. (If you haven’t practiced, maybe you should watch a movie instead!)

Research Methods in Social Psychology

One of the things Triplett’s early experiment illustrated is scientists’ reliance on systematic observation over opinion, or anecdotal evidence . The scientific method usually begins with observing the world around us (e.g., results of cycling competitions) and thinking of an interesting question (e.g., Why do cyclists perform better in groups?). The next step involves generating a specific testable prediction, or hypothesis (e.g., performance on simple tasks is enhanced in the presence of others). Next, scientists must operationalize the variables they are studying. This means they must figure out a way to define and measure abstract concepts. For example, the phrase “perform better” could mean different things in different situations; in Triplett’s experiment it referred to the amount of time (measured with a stopwatch) it took to wind a fishing reel. Similarly, “in the presence of others” in this case was operationalized as another child winding a fishing reel at the same time in the same room. Creating specific operational definitions like this allows scientists to precisely manipulate the independent variable , or “cause” (the presence of others), and to measure the dependent variable , or “effect” (performance)—in other words, to collect data. Clearly described operational definitions also help reveal possible limitations to studies (e.g., Triplett’s study did not investigate the impact of another child in the room who was not also winding a fishing reel) and help later researchers replicate them precisely.

Laboratory Research

As you can see, social psychologists have always relied on carefully designed laboratory environments to run experiments where they can closely control situations and manipulate variables (see the NOBA module on Research Designs for an overview of traditional methods). However, in the decades since Triplett discovered social facilitation, a wide range of methods and techniques have been devised, uniquely suited to demystifying the mechanics of how we relate to and influence one another. This module provides an introduction to the use of complex laboratory experiments, field experiments, naturalistic observation, survey research, nonconscious techniques, and archival research, as well as more recent methods that harness the power of technology and large data sets, to study the broad range of topics that fall within the domain of social psychology. At the end of this module we will also consider some of the key ethical principles that govern research in this diverse field.

The use of complex experimental designs , with multiple independent and/or dependent variables, has grown increasingly popular because they permit researchers to study both the individual and joint effects of several factors on a range of related situations. Moreover, thanks to technological advancements and the growth of social neuroscience , an increasing number of researchers now integrate biological markers (e.g., hormones) or use neuroimaging techniques (e.g., fMRI) in their research designs to better understand the biological mechanisms that underlie social processes.

We can dissect the fascinating research of Dov Cohen and his colleagues (1996) on “culture of honor” to provide insights into complex lab studies. A culture of honor is one that emphasizes personal or family reputation. In a series of lab studies, the Cohen research team invited dozens of university students into the lab to see how they responded to aggression. Half were from the Southern United States (a culture of honor) and half were from the Northern United States (not a culture of honor; this type of setup constitutes a participant variable of two levels). Region of origin was independent variable #1. Participants also provided a saliva sample immediately upon arriving at the lab; (they were given a cover story about how their blood sugar levels would be monitored over a series of tasks).

The participants completed a brief questionnaire and were then sent down a narrow corridor to drop it off on a table. En route, they encountered a confederate at an open file cabinet who pushed the drawer in to let them pass. When the participant returned a few seconds later, the confederate, who had re-opened the file drawer, slammed it shut and bumped into the participant with his shoulder, muttering “asshole” before walking away. In a manipulation of an independent variable—in this case, the insult—some of the participants were insulted publicly (in view of two other confederates pretending to be doing homework) while others were insulted privately (no one else was around). In a third condition—the control group—participants experienced a modified procedure in which they were not insulted at all.

Although this is a fairly elaborate procedure on its face, what is particularly impressive is the number of dependent variables the researchers were able to measure. First, in the public insult condition, the two additional confederates (who observed the interaction, pretending to do homework) rated the participants’ emotional reaction (e.g., anger, amusement, etc.) to being bumped into and insulted. Second, upon returning to the lab, participants in all three conditions were told they would later undergo electric shocks as part of a stress test, and were asked how much of a shock they would be willing to receive (between 10 volts and 250 volts). This decision was made in front of two confederates who had already chosen shock levels of 75 and 25 volts, presumably providing an opportunity for participants to publicly demonstrate their toughness. Third, across all conditions, the participants rated the likelihood of a variety of ambiguously provocative scenarios (e.g., one driver cutting another driver off) escalating into a fight or verbal argument. And fourth, in one of the studies, participants provided saliva samples, one right after returning to the lab, and a final one after completing the questionnaire with the ambiguous scenarios. Later, all three saliva samples were tested for levels of cortisol (a hormone associated with stress) and testosterone (a hormone associated with aggression).

The results showed that people from the Northern United States were far more likely to laugh off the incident (only 35% having anger ratings as high as or higher than amusement ratings), whereas the opposite was true for people from the South (85% of whom had anger ratings as high as or higher than amusement ratings). Also, only those from the South experienced significant increases in cortisol and testosterone following the insult (with no difference between the public and private insult conditions). Finally, no regional differences emerged in the interpretation of the ambiguous scenarios; however, the participants from the South were more likely to choose to receive a greater shock in the presence of the two confederates.

Field Research

Because social psychology is primarily focused on the social context—groups, families, cultures—researchers commonly leave the laboratory to collect data on life as it is actually lived. To do so, they use a variation of the laboratory experiment, called a field experiment . A field experiment is similar to a lab experiment except it uses real-world situations, such as people shopping at a grocery store. One of the major differences between field experiments and laboratory experiments is that the people in field experiments do not know they are participating in research, so—in theory—they will act more naturally. In a classic example from 1972, Alice Isen and Paula Levin wanted to explore the ways emotions affect helping behavior. To investigate this they observed the behavior of people at pay phones (I know! Pay phones! ). Half of the unsuspecting participants (determined by random assignment ) found a dime planted by researchers (I know! A dime! ) in the coin slot, while the other half did not. Presumably, finding a dime felt surprising and lucky and gave people a small jolt of happiness. Immediately after the unsuspecting participant left the phone booth, a confederate walked by and dropped a stack of papers. Almost 100% of those who found a dime helped to pick up the papers. And what about those who didn’t find a dime? Only 1 out 25 of them bothered to help.

In cases where it’s not practical or ethical to randomly assign participants to different experimental conditions, we can use naturalistic observation —unobtrusively watching people as they go about their lives. Consider, for example, a classic demonstration of the “ basking in reflected glory ” phenomenon: Robert Cialdini and his colleagues used naturalistic observation at seven universities to confirm that students are significantly more likely to wear clothing bearing the school name or logo on days following wins (vs. draws or losses) by the school’s varsity football team (Cialdini et al., 1976). In another study, by Jenny Radesky and her colleagues (2014), 40 out of 55 observations of caregivers eating at fast food restaurants with children involved a caregiver using a mobile device. The researchers also noted that caregivers who were most absorbed in their device tended to ignore the children’s behavior, followed by scolding, issuing repeated instructions, or using physical responses, such as kicking the children’s feet or pushing away their hands.

A group of techniques collectively referred to as experience sampling methods represent yet another way of conducting naturalistic observation, often by harnessing the power of technology. In some cases, participants are notified several times during the day by a pager, wristwatch, or a smartphone app to record data (e.g., by responding to a brief survey or scale on their smartphone, or in a diary). For example, in a study by Reed Larson and his colleagues (1994), mothers and fathers carried pagers for one week and reported their emotional states when beeped at random times during their daily activities at work or at home. The results showed that mothers reported experiencing more positive emotional states when away from home (including at work), whereas fathers showed the reverse pattern. A more recently developed technique, known as the electronically activated recorder , or EAR, does not even require participants to stop what they are doing to record their thoughts or feelings; instead, a small portable audio recorder or smartphone app is used to automatically record brief snippets of participants’ conversations throughout the day for later coding and analysis. For a more in-depth description of the EAR technique and other experience-sampling methods, see the NOBA module on Conducting Psychology Research in the Real World.

Survey Research

In this diverse world, survey research offers itself as an invaluable tool for social psychologists to study individual and group differences in people’s feelings, attitudes, or behaviors. For example, the World Values Survey II was based on large representative samples of 19 countries and allowed researchers to determine that the relationship between income and subjective well-being was stronger in poorer countries (Diener & Oishi, 2000). In other words, an increase in income has a much larger impact on your life satisfaction if you live in Nigeria than if you live in Canada. In another example, a nationally-representative survey in Germany with 16,000 respondents revealed that holding cynical beliefs is related to lower income (e.g., between 2003-2012 the income of the least cynical individuals increased by $300 per month, whereas the income of the most cynical individuals did not increase at all). Furthermore, survey data collected from 41 countries revealed that this negative correlation between cynicism and income is especially strong in countries where people in general engage in more altruistic behavior and tend not to be very cynical (Stavrova & Ehlebracht, 2016).

Of course, obtaining large, cross-cultural, and representative samples has become far easier since the advent of the internet and the proliferation of web-based survey platforms—such as Qualtrics—and participant recruitment platforms—such as Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. And although some researchers harbor doubts about the representativeness of online samples, studies have shown that internet samples are in many ways more diverse and representative than samples recruited from human subject pools (e.g., with respect to gender; Gosling et al., 2004). Online samples also compare favorably with traditional samples on attentiveness while completing the survey, reliability of data, and proportion of non-respondents (Paolacci et al., 2010).

Subtle/Nonconscious Research Methods

The methods we have considered thus far—field experiments, naturalistic observation, and surveys—work well when the thoughts, feelings, or behaviors being investigated are conscious and directly or indirectly observable. However, social psychologists often wish to measure or manipulate elements that are involuntary or nonconscious, such as when studying prejudicial attitudes people may be unaware of or embarrassed by. A good example of a technique that was developed to measure people’s nonconscious (and often ugly) attitudes is known as the implicit association test (IAT) (Greenwald et al., 1998). This computer-based task requires participants to sort a series of stimuli (as rapidly and accurately as possible) into simple and combined categories while their reaction time is measured (in milliseconds). For example, an IAT might begin with participants sorting the names of relatives (such as “Niece” or “Grandfather”) into the categories “Male” and “Female,” followed by a round of sorting the names of disciplines (such as “Chemistry” or “English”) into the categories “Arts” and “Science.” A third round might combine the earlier two by requiring participants to sort stimuli into either “Male or Science” or “Female and Arts” before the fourth round switches the combinations to “Female or Science” and “Male and Arts.” If across all of the trials a person is quicker at accurately sorting incoming stimuli into the compound category “Male or Science” than into “Female or Science,” the authors of the IAT suggest that the participant likely has a stronger association between males and science than between females and science. Incredibly, this specific gender-science IAT has been completed by more than half a million participants across 34 countries, about 70% of whom show an implicit stereotype associating science with males more than with females (Nosek et al., 2009). What’s more, when the data are grouped by country, national differences in implicit stereotypes predict national differences in the achievement gap between boys and girls in science and math. Our automatic associations, apparently, carry serious societal consequences.

Another nonconscious technique, known as priming , is often used to subtly manipulate behavior by activating or making more accessible certain concepts or beliefs. Consider the fascinating example of terror management theory (TMT) , whose authors believe that human beings are (unconsciously) terrified of their mortality (i.e., the fact that, some day, we will all die; Pyszczynski et al., 2003). According to TMT, in order to cope with this unpleasant reality (and the possibility that our lives are ultimately essentially meaningless), we cling firmly to systems of cultural and religious beliefs that give our lives meaning and purpose. If this hypothesis is correct, one straightforward prediction would be that people should cling even more firmly to their cultural beliefs when they are subtly reminded of their own mortality.

In one of the earliest tests of this hypothesis, actual municipal court judges in Arizona were asked to set a bond for an alleged prostitute immediately after completing a brief questionnaire. For half of the judges the questionnaire ended with questions about their thoughts and feelings regarding the prospect of their own death. Incredibly, judges in the experimental group that were primed with thoughts about their mortality set a significantly higher bond than those in the control group ($455 vs. $50!)—presumably because they were especially motivated to defend their belief system in the face of a violation of the law (Rosenblatt et al., 1989). Although the judges consciously completed the survey, what makes this a study of priming is that the second task (sentencing) was unrelated, so any influence of the survey on their later judgments would have been nonconscious. Similar results have been found in TMT studies in which participants were primed to think about death even more subtly, such as by having them complete questionnaires just before or after they passed a funeral home (Pyszczynski et al., 1996).

To verify that the subtle manipulation (e.g., questions about one’s death) has the intended effect (activating death-related thoughts), priming studies like these often include a manipulation check following the introduction of a prime. For example, right after being primed, participants in a TMT study might be given a word fragment task in which they have to complete words such as COFF_ _ or SK _ _ L. As you might imagine, participants in the mortality-primed experimental group typically complete these fragments as COFFIN and SKULL, whereas participants in the control group complete them as COFFEE and SKILL.

The use of priming to unwittingly influence behavior, known as social or behavioral priming (Ferguson & Mann, 2014), has been at the center of the recent “replication crisis” in Psychology (see the NOBA module on replication). Whereas earlier studies showed, for example, that priming people to think about old age makes them walk slower (Bargh, Chen, & Burrows, 1996), that priming them to think about a university professor boosts performance on a trivia game (Dijksterhuis & van Knippenberg, 1998), and that reminding them of mating motives (e.g., sex) makes them more willing to engage in risky behavior (Greitemeyer, Kastenmüller, & Fischer, 2013), several recent efforts to replicate these findings have failed (e.g., Harris et al., 2013; Shanks et al., 2013). Such failures to replicate findings highlight the need to ensure that both the original studies and replications are carefully designed, have adequate sample sizes, and that researchers pre-register their hypotheses and openly share their results—whether these support the initial hypothesis or not.

Archival Research

Imagine that a researcher wants to investigate how the presence of passengers in a car affects drivers’ performance. She could ask research participants to respond to questions about their own driving habits. Alternately, she might be able to access police records of the number of speeding tickets issued by automatic camera devices, then count the number of solo drivers versus those with passengers. This would be an example of archival research . The examination of archives, statistics, and other records such as speeches, letters, or even tweets, provides yet another window into social psychology. Although this method is typically used as a type of correlational research design—due to the lack of control over the relevant variables—archival research shares the higher ecological validity of naturalistic observation. That is, the observations are conducted outside the laboratory and represent real world behaviors. Moreover, because the archives being examined can be collected at any time and from many sources, this technique is especially flexible and often involves less expenditure of time and other resources during data collection.

Social psychologists have used archival research to test a wide variety of hypotheses using real-world data. For example, analyses of major league baseball games played during the 1986, 1987, and 1988 seasons showed that baseball pitchers were more likely to hit batters with a pitch on hot days (Reifman et al., 1991). Another study compared records of race-based lynching in the United States between 1882-1930 to the inflation-adjusted price of cotton during that time (a key indicator of the Deep South’s economic health), demonstrating a significant negative correlation between these variables. Simply put, there were significantly more lynchings when the price of cotton stayed flat, and fewer lynchings when the price of cotton rose (Beck & Tolnay, 1990; Hovland & Sears, 1940). This suggests that race-based violence is associated with the health of the economy.

More recently, analyses of social media posts have provided social psychologists with extremely large sets of data (“ big data ”) to test creative hypotheses. In an example of research on attitudes about vaccinations, Mitra and her colleagues (2016) collected over 3 million tweets sent by more than 32 thousand users over four years. Interestingly, they found that those who held (and tweeted) anti-vaccination attitudes were also more likely to tweet about their mistrust of government and beliefs in government conspiracies. Similarly, Eichstaedt and his colleagues (2015) used the language of 826 million tweets to predict community-level mortality rates from heart disease. That’s right: more anger-related words and fewer positive-emotion words in tweets predicted higher rates of heart disease.

In a more controversial example, researchers at Facebook attempted to test whether emotional contagion—the transfer of emotional states from one person to another—would occur if Facebook manipulated the content that showed up in its users’ News Feed (Kramer et al., 2014). And it did. When friends’ posts with positive expressions were concealed, users wrote slightly fewer positive posts (e.g., “Loving my new phone!”). Conversely, when posts with negative expressions were hidden, users wrote slightly fewer negative posts (e.g., “Got to go to work. Ugh.”). This suggests that people’s positivity or negativity can impact their social circles.

The controversial part of this study—which included 689,003 Facebook users and involved the analysis of over 3 million posts made over just one week—was the fact that Facebook did not explicitly request permission from users to participate. Instead, Facebook relied on the fine print in their data-use policy. And, although academic researchers who collaborated with Facebook on this study applied for ethical approval from their institutional review board (IRB), they apparently only did so after data collection was complete, raising further questions about the ethicality of the study and highlighting concerns about the ability of large, profit-driven corporations to subtly manipulate people’s social lives and choices.

Research Issues in Social Psychology

The question of representativeness.

Along with our counterparts in the other areas of psychology, social psychologists have been guilty of largely recruiting samples of convenience from the thin slice of humanity—students—found at universities and colleges (Sears, 1986). This presents a problem when trying to assess the social mechanics of the public at large. Aside from being an overrepresentation of young, middle-class Caucasians, college students may also be more compliant and more susceptible to attitude change, have less stable personality traits and interpersonal relationships, and possess stronger cognitive skills than samples reflecting a wider range of age and experience (Peterson & Merunka, 2014; Visser, Krosnick, & Lavrakas, 2000). Put simply, these traditional samples (college students) may not be sufficiently representative of the broader population. Furthermore, considering that 96% of participants in psychology studies come from western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic countries (so-called WEIRD cultures ; Henrich, Heine, & Norenzayan, 2010), and that the majority of these are also psychology students , the question of non-representativeness becomes even more serious.

Of course, when studying a basic cognitive process (like working memory capacity) or an aspect of social behavior that appears to be fairly universal (e.g., even cockroaches exhibit social facilitation!), a non-representative sample may not be a big deal. However, over time research has repeatedly demonstrated the important role that individual differences (e.g., personality traits, cognitive abilities, etc.) and culture (e.g., individualism vs. collectivism) play in shaping social behavior. For instance, even if we only consider a tiny sample of research on aggression, we know that narcissists are more likely to respond to criticism with aggression (Bushman & Baumeister, 1998); conservatives, who have a low tolerance for uncertainty, are more likely to prefer aggressive actions against those considered to be “outsiders” (de Zavala et al., 2010); countries where men hold the bulk of power in society have higher rates of physical aggression directed against female partners (Archer, 2006); and males from the southern part of the United States are more likely to react with aggression following an insult (Cohen et al., 1996).

Ethics in Social Psychological Research

For better or worse (but probably for worse), when we think about the most unethical studies in psychology, we think about social psychology. Imagine, for example, encouraging people to deliver what they believe to be a dangerous electric shock to a stranger (with bloodcurdling screams for added effect!). This is considered a “classic” study in social psychology. Or, how about having students play the role of prison guards, deliberately and sadistically abusing other students in the role of prison inmates. Yep, social psychology too. Of course, both Stanley Milgram’s (1963) experiments on obedience to authority and the Stanford prison study (Haney et al., 1973) would be considered unethical by today’s standards, which have progressed with our understanding of the field. Today, we follow a series of guidelines and receive prior approval from our institutional research boards before beginning such experiments. Among the most important principles are the following:

• Informed consent: In general, people should know when they are involved in research, and understand what will happen to them during the study (at least in general terms that do not give away the hypothesis). They are then given the choice to participate, along with the freedom to withdraw from the study at any time. This is precisely why the Facebook emotional contagion study discussed earlier is considered ethically questionable. Still, it’s important to note that certain kinds of methods—such as naturalistic observation in public spaces, or archival research based on public records—do not require obtaining informed consent.
• Privacy: Although it is permissible to observe people’s actions in public—even without them knowing—researchers cannot violate their privacy by observing them in restrooms or other private spaces without their knowledge and consent. Researchers also may not identify individual participants in their research reports (we typically report only group means and other statistics). With online data collection becoming increasingly popular, researchers also have to be mindful that they follow local data privacy laws, collect only the data that they really need (e.g., avoiding including unnecessary questions in surveys), strictly restrict access to the raw data, and have a plan in place to securely destroy the data after it is no longer needed.
• Risks and Benefits: People who participate in psychological studies should be exposed to risk only if they fully understand the risks and only if the likely benefits clearly outweigh those risks. The Stanford prison study is a notorious example of a failure to meet this obligation. It was planned to run for two weeks but had to be shut down after only six days because of the abuse suffered by the “prison inmates.” But even less extreme cases, such as researchers wishing to investigate implicit prejudice using the IAT, need to be considerate of the consequences of providing feedback to participants about their nonconscious biases. Similarly, any manipulations that could potentially provoke serious emotional reactions (e.g., the culture of honor study described above) or relatively permanent changes in people’s beliefs or behaviors (e.g., attitudes towards recycling) need to be carefully reviewed by the IRB.
• Deception: Social psychologists sometimes need to deceive participants (e.g., using a cover story) to avoid demand characteristics by hiding the true nature of the study. This is typically done to prevent participants from modifying their behavior in unnatural ways, especially in laboratory or field experiments. For example, when Milgram recruited participants for his experiments on obedience to authority, he described it as being a study of the effects of punishment on memory! Deception is typically only permitted (a) when the benefits of the study outweigh the risks, (b) participants are not reasonably expected to be harmed, (c) the research question cannot be answered without the use of deception, and (d) participants are informed about the deception as soon as possible, usually through debriefing.
• Debriefing: This is the process of informing research participants as soon as possible of the purpose of the study, revealing any deceptions, and correcting any misconceptions they might have as a result of participating. Debriefing also involves minimizing harm that might have occurred. For example, an experiment examining the effects of sad moods on charitable behavior might involve inducing a sad mood in participants by having them think sad thoughts, watch a sad video, or listen to sad music. Debriefing would therefore be the time to return participants’ moods to normal by having them think happy thoughts, watch a happy video, or listen to happy music.

As an immensely social species, we affect and influence each other in many ways, particularly through our interactions and cultural expectations, both conscious and nonconscious. The study of social psychology examines much of the business of our everyday lives, including our thoughts, feelings, and behaviors we are unaware or ashamed of. The desire to carefully and precisely study these topics, together with advances in technology, has led to the development of many creative techniques that allow researchers to explore the mechanics of how we relate to one another. Consider this your invitation to join the investigation.

Outside Resources

Discussion questions.

• What are some pros and cons of experimental research, field research, and archival research?
• How would you feel if you learned that you had been a participant in a naturalistic observation study (without explicitly providing your consent)? How would you feel if you learned during a debriefing procedure that you have a stronger association between the concept of violence and members of visible minorities? Can you think of other examples of when following principles of ethical research create challenging situations?
• Can you think of an attitude (other than those related to prejudice) that would be difficult or impossible to measure by asking people directly?
• What do you think is the difference between a manipulation check and a dependent variable?
• Archer, J. (2006). Cross-cultural differences in physical aggression between partners: A social-role analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review , 10(2), 133-153. doi: 10.1207/s15327957pspr1002_3
• Bargh, J. A., Chen, M., & Burrows, L. (1996). Automaticity of social behavior: Direct effects of trait construct and stereotype activation on action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 71(2), 230-244. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.2.230
• Beck, E. M., & Tolnay, S. E. (1990). The killing fields of the Deep South: The market for cotton and the lynching of Blacks, 1882-1930. American Sociological Review , 55(4), 526-539.
• Bushman, B. J., & Baumeister, R. F. (1998). Threatened egotism, narcissism, self-esteem, and direct and displaced aggression: does self-love or self-hate lead to violence? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 75(1), 219-229. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.1.219
• Cialdini, R. B., Borden, R. J., Thorne, A., Walker, M. R., Freeman, S., & Sloan, L. R. (1976). Basking in reflected glory: Three (football) field studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 34(3), 366-375. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.34.3.366
• Cohen, D., Nisbett, R. E., Bowdle, B. F. & Schwarz, N. (1996). Insult, aggression, and the southern culture of honor: An "experimental ethnography." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 70(5), 945-960. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.5.945
• Diener, E., & Oishi, S. (2000). Money and happiness: Income and subjective well-being across nations. In E. Diener & E. M. Suh (Eds.), Culture and subjective well-being (pp. 185-218). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Dijksterhuis, A., & van Knippenberg, A. (1998). The relation between perception and behavior, or how to win a game of trivial pursuit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 74(4), 865-877. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.4.865
• Eichstaedt, J. C., Schwartz, H. A., Kern, M. L., Park, G., Labarthe, D. R., Merchant, R. M., & Sap, M. (2015). Psychological language on twitter predicts county-level heart disease mortality. Psychological Science , 26(2), 159–169. doi: 10.1177/0956797614557867
• Ferguson, M. J., & Mann, T. C. (2014). Effects of evaluation: An example of robust “social” priming. Social Cognition , 32, 33-46. doi: 10.1521/soco.2014.32.supp.33
• Gosling, S. D., Vazire, S., Srivastava, S., & John, O. P. (2004). Should we trust web-based studies? A comparative analysis of six preconceptions about internet questionnaires. American Psychologist , 59(2), 93-104. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.59.2.93
• Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 74(6), 1464-1480. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1464
• Greitemeyer, T., Kastenmüller, A., & Fischer, P. (2013). Romantic motives and risk-taking: An evolutionary approach. Journal of Risk Research , 16, 19-38. doi: 10.1080/13669877.2012.713388
• Haney, C., Banks, C., & Zimbardo, P. (1973). Interpersonal dynamics in a simulated prison. International Journal of Criminology and Penology, 1, 69-97.
• Harris, C. R., Coburn, N., Rohrer, D., & Pashler, H. (2013). Two failures to replicate high-performance-goal priming effects. PLoS ONE , 8(8): e72467. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0072467
• Henrich, J., Heine, S., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences , 33(2-3), 61-83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0999152X
• Hovland, C. I., & Sears, R. R. (1940). Minor studies of aggression: VI. Correlation of lynchings with economic indices. The Journal of Psychology , 9(2), 301-310. doi: 10.1080/00223980.1940.9917696
• Isen, A. M., & Levin, P. F. (1972). Effect of feeling good on helping: Cookies and kindness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 21(3), 384-388. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0032317
• Kramer, A. D. I., Guillory, J. E., & Hancock, J. T. (2014). Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 111(24), 8788-8790. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1320040111
• Larson, R. W., Richards, M. H., & Perry-Jenkins, M. (1994). Divergent worlds: the daily emotional experience of mothers and fathers in the domestic and public spheres. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 67(6), 1034-1046.
• Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology , 67(4), 371–378. doi: 10.1037/h0040525
• Mitra, T., Counts, S., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2016). Understanding anti-vaccination attitudes in social media. Presentation at the Tenth International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media . Retrieved from comp.social.gatech.edu/papers...cine.mitra.pdf
• Nosek, B. A., Smyth, F. L., Sriram, N., Lindner, N. M., Devos, T., Ayala, A., ... & Kesebir, S. (2009). National differences in gender–science stereotypes predict national sex differences in science and math achievement. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 106(26), 10593-10597. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0809921106
• Paolacci, G., Chandler, J., & Ipeirotis, P. G. (2010). Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgment and Decision Making , 51(5), 411-419.
• Peterson, R. A., & Merunka, D. R. (2014). Convenience samples of college students and research reproducibility. Journal of Business Research , 67(5), 1035-1041. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.08.010
• Pyszczynski, T., Solomon, S., & Greenberg, J. (2003). In the wake of 9/11: The psychology of terror . Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
• Pyszczynski, T., Wicklund, R. A., Floresku, S., Koch, H., Gauch, G., Solomon, S., & Greenberg, J. (1996). Whistling in the dark: Exaggerated consensus estimates in response to incidental reminders of mortality. Psychological Science , 7(6), 332-336. doi: 10.111/j.1467-9280.1996.tb00384.x
• Radesky, J. S., Kistin, C. J., Zuckerman, B., Nitzberg, K., Gross, J., Kaplan-Sanoff, M., Augustyn, M., & Silverstein, M. (2014). Patterns of mobile device use by caregivers and children during meals in fast food restaurants. Pediatrics , 133(4), e843-849. doi: 10.1542/peds.2013-3703
• Reifman, A. S., Larrick, R. P., & Fein, S. (1991). Temper and temperature on the diamond: The heat-aggression relationship in major league baseball. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 17(5), 580-585. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167291175013
• Rosenblatt, A., Greenberg, J., Solomon, S., Pyszczynski. T, & Lyon, D. (1989). Evidence for terror management theory I: The effects of mortality salience on reactions to those who violate or uphold cultural values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 57(4), 681-690. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.4.681
• Sears, D. O. (1986). College sophomores in the laboratory: Influences of a narrow data base on social psychology’s view of human nature. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 51(3), 515-530. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.3.515
• Shanks, D. R., Newell, B. R., Lee, E. H., Balakrishnan, D., Ekelund L., Cenac Z., … Moore, C. (2013). Priming intelligent behavior: An elusive phenomenon. PLoS ONE , 8(4): e56515. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0056515
• Stavrova, O., & Ehlebracht, D. (2016). Cynical beliefs about human nature and income: Longitudinal and cross-cultural analyses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 110(1), 116-132. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000050
• Stroebe, W. (2012). The truth about Triplett (1898), but nobody seems to care. Perspectives on Psychological Science , 7(1), 54-57. doi: 10.1177/1745691611427306
• Triplett, N. (1898). The dynamogenic factors in pacemaking and competition. American Journal of Psychology , 9, 507-533.
• Visser, P. S., Krosnick, J. A., & Lavrakas, P. (2000). Survey research. In H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social psychology (pp. 223-252). New York: Cambridge University Press.
• de Zavala, A. G., Cislak, A., & Wesolowska, E. (2010). Political conservatism, need for cognitive closure, and intergroup hostility. Political Psychology , 31(4), 521-541. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9221.2010.00767.x

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

1.3 Conducting Research in Social Psychology

Learning objectives.

• Explain why social psychologists rely on empirical methods to study social behavior.
• Provide examples of how social psychologists measure the variables they are interested in.
• Review the three types of research designs, and evaluate the strengths and limitations of each type.
• Consider the role of validity in research, and describe how research programs should be evaluated.

Social psychologists are not the only people interested in understanding and predicting social behavior or the only people who study it. Social behavior is also considered by religious leaders, philosophers, politicians, novelists, and others, and it is a common topic on TV shows. But the social psychological approach to understanding social behavior goes beyond the mere observation of human actions. Social psychologists believe that a true understanding of the causes of social behavior can only be obtained through a systematic scientific approach, and that is why they conduct scientific research. Social psychologists believe that the study of social behavior should be empirical —that is, based on the collection and systematic analysis of observable data .

The Importance of Scientific Research

Because social psychology concerns the relationships among people, and because we can frequently find answers to questions about human behavior by using our own common sense or intuition, many people think that it is not necessary to study it empirically (Lilienfeld, 2011). But although we do learn about people by observing others and therefore social psychology is in fact partly common sense, social psychology is not entirely common sense.

In case you are not convinced about this, perhaps you would be willing to test whether or not social psychology is just common sense by taking a short true-or-false quiz. If so, please have a look at Table 1.1 “Is Social Psychology Just Common Sense?” and respond with either “True” or “False.” Based on your past observations of people’s behavior, along with your own common sense, you will likely have answers to each of the questions on the quiz. But how sure are you? Would you be willing to bet that all, or even most, of your answers have been shown to be correct by scientific research? Would you be willing to accept your score on this quiz for your final grade in this class? If you are like most of the students in my classes, you will get at least some of these answers wrong. (To see the answers and a brief description of the scientific research supporting each of these topics, please go to the Chapter Summary at the end of this chapter.)

Table 1.1 Is Social Psychology Just Common Sense?

One of the reasons we might think that social psychology is common sense is that once we learn about the outcome of a given event (e.g., when we read about the results of a research project), we frequently believe that we would have been able to predict the outcome ahead of time. For instance, if half of a class of students is told that research concerning attraction between people has demonstrated that “opposites attract,” and if the other half is told that research has demonstrated that “birds of a feather flock together,” most of the students in both groups will report believing that the outcome is true and that they would have predicted the outcome before they had heard about it. Of course, both of these contradictory outcomes cannot be true. The problem is that just reading a description of research findings leads us to think of the many cases that we know that support the findings and thus makes them seem believable. The tendency to think that we could have predicted something that we probably would not have been able to predict is called the hindsight bias .

Our common sense also leads us to believe that we know why we engage in the behaviors that we engage in, when in fact we may not. Social psychologist Daniel Wegner and his colleagues have conducted a variety of studies showing that we do not always understand the causes of our own actions. When we think about a behavior before we engage in it, we believe that the thinking guided our behavior, even when it did not (Morewedge, Gray, & Wegner, 2010). People also report that they contribute more to solving a problem when they are led to believe that they have been working harder on it, even though the effort did not increase their contribution to the outcome (Preston & Wegner, 2007). These findings, and many others like them, demonstrate that our beliefs about the causes of social events, and even of our own actions, do not always match the true causes of those events.

Social psychologists conduct research because it often uncovers results that could not have been predicted ahead of time. Putting our hunches to the test exposes our ideas to scrutiny. The scientific approach brings a lot of surprises, but it also helps us test our explanations about behavior in a rigorous manner. It is important for you to understand the research methods used in psychology so that you can evaluate the validity of the research that you read about here, in other courses, and in your everyday life.

Social psychologists publish their research in scientific journals, and your instructor may require you to read some of these research articles. The most important social psychology journals are listed in Table 1.2 “Social Psychology Journals” . If you are asked to do a literature search on research in social psychology, you should look for articles from these journals.

Table 1.2 Social Psychology Journals

We’ll discuss the empirical approach and review the findings of many research projects throughout this book, but for now let’s take a look at the basics of how scientists use research to draw overall conclusions about social behavior. Keep in mind as you read this book, however, that although social psychologists are pretty good at understanding the causes of behavior, our predictions are a long way from perfect. We are not able to control the minds or the behaviors of others or to predict exactly what they will do in any given situation. Human behavior is complicated because people are complicated and because the social situations that they find themselves in every day are also complex. It is this complexity—at least for me—that makes studying people so interesting and fun.

Measuring Affect, Behavior, and Cognition

One important aspect of using an empirical approach to understand social behavior is that the concepts of interest must be measured ( Figure 1.4 “The Operational Definition” ). If we are interested in learning how much Sarah likes Robert, then we need to have a measure of her liking for him. But how, exactly, should we measure the broad idea of “liking”? In scientific terms, the characteristics that we are trying to measure are known as conceptual variables , and the particular method that we use to measure a variable of interest is called an operational definition .

For anything that we might wish to measure, there are many different operational definitions, and which one we use depends on the goal of the research and the type of situation we are studying. To better understand this, let’s look at an example of how we might operationally define “Sarah likes Robert.”

Figure 1.4 The Operational Definition

An idea or conceptual variable (such as “how much Sarah likes Robert”) is turned into a measure through an operational definition.

One approach to measurement involves directly asking people about their perceptions using self-report measures. Self-report measures are measures in which individuals are asked to respond to questions posed by an interviewer or on a questionnaire . Generally, because any one question might be misunderstood or answered incorrectly, in order to provide a better measure, more than one question is asked and the responses to the questions are averaged together. For example, an operational definition of Sarah’s liking for Robert might involve asking her to complete the following measure:

I enjoy being around Robert.

Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 Strongly agree

I get along well with Robert.

I like Robert.

The operational definition would be the average of her responses across the three questions. Because each question assesses the attitude differently, and yet each question should nevertheless measure Sarah’s attitude toward Robert in some way, the average of the three questions will generally be a better measure than would any one question on its own.

Although it is easy to ask many questions on self-report measures, these measures have a potential disadvantage. As we have seen, people’s insights into their own opinions and their own behaviors may not be perfect, and they might also not want to tell the truth—perhaps Sarah really likes Robert, but she is unwilling or unable to tell us so. Therefore, an alternative to self-report that can sometimes provide a more valid measure is to measure behavior itself. Behavioral measures are measures designed to directly assess what people do . Instead of asking Sara how much she likes Robert, we might instead measure her liking by assessing how much time she spends with Robert or by coding how much she smiles at him when she talks to him. Some examples of behavioral measures that have been used in social psychological research are shown in Table 1.3 “Examples of Operational Definitions of Conceptual Variables That Have Been Used in Social Psychological Research” .

Table 1.3 Examples of Operational Definitions of Conceptual Variables That Have Been Used in Social Psychological Research

Social Neuroscience: Measuring Social Responses in the Brain

Still another approach to measuring our thoughts and feelings is to measure brain activity, and recent advances in brain science have created a wide variety of new techniques for doing so. One approach, known as electroencephalography (EEG) , is a technique that records the electrical activity produced by the brain’s neurons through the use of electrodes that are placed around the research participant’s head . An electroencephalogram (EEG) can show if a person is asleep, awake, or anesthetized because the brain wave patterns are known to differ during each state. An EEG can also track the waves that are produced when a person is reading, writing, and speaking with others. A particular advantage of the technique is that the participant can move around while the recordings are being taken, which is useful when measuring brain activity in children who often have difficulty keeping still. Furthermore, by following electrical impulses across the surface of the brain, researchers can observe changes over very fast time periods.

This woman is wearing an EEG cap.

goocy – Research – CC BY-NC 2.0.

Although EEGs can provide information about the general patterns of electrical activity within the brain, and although they allow the researcher to see these changes quickly as they occur in real time, the electrodes must be placed on the surface of the skull, and each electrode measures brain waves from large areas of the brain. As a result, EEGs do not provide a very clear picture of the structure of the brain.

But techniques exist to provide more specific brain images. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) is a neuroimaging technique that uses a magnetic field to create images of brain structure and function . In research studies that use the fMRI, the research participant lies on a bed within a large cylindrical structure containing a very strong magnet. Nerve cells in the brain that are active use more oxygen, and the need for oxygen increases blood flow to the area. The fMRI detects the amount of blood flow in each brain region and thus is an indicator of which parts of the brain are active.

Very clear and detailed pictures of brain structures (see Figure 1.5 “Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI)” ) can be produced via fMRI. Often, the images take the form of cross-sectional “slices” that are obtained as the magnetic field is passed across the brain. The images of these slices are taken repeatedly and are superimposed on images of the brain structure itself to show how activity changes in different brain structures over time. Normally, the research participant is asked to engage in tasks while in the scanner, for instance, to make judgments about pictures of people, to solve problems, or to make decisions about appropriate behaviors. The fMRI images show which parts of the brain are associated with which types of tasks. Another advantage of the fMRI is that is it noninvasive. The research participant simply enters the machine and the scans begin.

Figure 1.5 Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI)

The fMRI creates images of brain structure and activity. In this image, the red and yellow areas represent increased blood flow and thus increased activity.

Reigh LeBlanc – Reigh’s Brain rlwat – CC BY-NC 2.0; Wikimedia Commons – public domain.

Although the scanners themselves are expensive, the advantages of fMRIs are substantial, and scanners are now available in many university and hospital settings. The fMRI is now the most commonly used method of learning about brain structure, and it has been employed by social psychologists to study social cognition, attitudes, morality, emotions, responses to being rejected by others, and racial prejudice, to name just a few topics (Eisenberger, Lieberman, & Williams, 2003; Greene, Sommerville, Nystrom, Darley, & Cohen, 2001; Lieberman, Hariri, Jarcho, Eisenberger, & Bookheimer, 2005; Ochsner, Bunge, Gross, & Gabrieli, 2002; Richeson et al., 2003).

Observational Research

Once we have decided how to measure our variables, we can begin the process of research itself. As you can see in Table 1.4 “Three Major Research Designs Used by Social Psychologists” , there are three major approaches to conducting research that are used by social psychologists—the observational approach , the correlational approach , and the experimental approach . Each approach has some advantages and disadvantages.

Table 1.4 Three Major Research Designs Used by Social Psychologists

The most basic research design, observational research , is research that involves making observations of behavior and recording those observations in an objective manner . Although it is possible in some cases to use observational data to draw conclusions about the relationships between variables (e.g., by comparing the behaviors of older versus younger children on a playground), in many cases the observational approach is used only to get a picture of what is happening to a given set of people at a given time and how they are responding to the social situation. In these cases, the observational approach involves creating a type of “snapshot” of the current state of affairs.

One advantage of observational research is that in many cases it is the only possible approach to collecting data about the topic of interest. A researcher who is interested in studying the impact of a hurricane on the residents of New Orleans, the reactions of New Yorkers to a terrorist attack, or the activities of the members of a religious cult cannot create such situations in a laboratory but must be ready to make observations in a systematic way when such events occur on their own. Thus observational research allows the study of unique situations that could not be created by the researcher. Another advantage of observational research is that the people whose behavior is being measured are doing the things they do every day, and in some cases they may not even know that their behavior is being recorded.

One early observational study that made an important contribution to understanding human behavior was reported in a book by Leon Festinger and his colleagues (Festinger, Riecken, & Schachter, 1956). The book, called When Prophecy Fails , reported an observational study of the members of a “doomsday” cult. The cult members believed that they had received information, supposedly sent through “automatic writing” from a planet called “Clarion,” that the world was going to end. More specifically, the group members were convinced that the earth would be destroyed, as the result of a gigantic flood, sometime before dawn on December 21, 1954.

When Festinger learned about the cult, he thought that it would be an interesting way to study how individuals in groups communicate with each other to reinforce their extreme beliefs. He and his colleagues observed the members of the cult over a period of several months, beginning in July of the year in which the flood was expected. The researchers collected a variety of behavioral and self-report measures by observing the cult, recording the conversations among the group members, and conducting detailed interviews with them. Festinger and his colleagues also recorded the reactions of the cult members, beginning on December 21, when the world did not end as they had predicted. This observational research provided a wealth of information about the indoctrination patterns of cult members and their reactions to disconfirmed predictions. This research also helped Festinger develop his important theory of cognitive dissonance.

Despite their advantages, observational research designs also have some limitations. Most important, because the data that are collected in observational studies are only a description of the events that are occurring, they do not tell us anything about the relationship between different variables. However, it is exactly this question that correlational research and experimental research are designed to answer.

The Research Hypothesis

Because social psychologists are generally interested in looking at relationships among variables, they begin by stating their predictions in the form of a precise statement known as a research hypothesis . A research hypothesis is a statement about the relationship between the variables of interest and about the specific direction of that relationship . For instance, the research hypothesis “People who are more similar to each other will be more attracted to each other” predicts that there is a relationship between a variable called similarity and another variable called attraction. In the research hypothesis “The attitudes of cult members become more extreme when their beliefs are challenged,” the variables that are expected to be related are extremity of beliefs and the degree to which the cults’ beliefs are challenged.

Because the research hypothesis states both that there is a relationship between the variables and the direction of that relationship, it is said to be falsifiable . Being falsifiable means that the outcome of the research can demonstrate empirically either that there is support for the hypothesis (i.e., the relationship between the variables was correctly specified) or that there is actually no relationship between the variables or that the actual relationship is not in the direction that was predicted . Thus the research hypothesis that “people will be more attracted to others who are similar to them” is falsifiable because the research could show either that there was no relationship between similarity and attraction or that people we see as similar to us are seen as less attractive than those who are dissimilar.

Correlational Research

The goal of correlational research is to search for and test hypotheses about the relationships between two or more variables. In the simplest case, the correlation is between only two variables, such as that between similarity and liking, or between gender (male versus female) and helping.

In a correlational design, the research hypothesis is that there is an association (i.e., a correlation) between the variables that are being measured. For instance, many researchers have tested the research hypothesis that a positive correlation exists between the use of violent video games and the incidence of aggressive behavior, such that people who play violent video games more frequently would also display more aggressive behavior.

A statistic known as the Pearson correlation coefficient (symbolized by the letter r ) is normally used to summarize the association, or correlation, between two variables. The correlation coefficient can range from −1 (indicating a very strong negative relationship between the variables) to +1 (indicating a very strong positive relationship between the variables). Research has found that there is a positive correlation between the use of violent video games and the incidence of aggressive behavior and that the size of the correlation is about r = .30 (Bushman & Huesmann, 2010).

One advantage of correlational research designs is that, like observational research (and in comparison with experimental research designs in which the researcher frequently creates relatively artificial situations in a laboratory setting), they are often used to study people doing the things that they do every day. And correlational research designs also have the advantage of allowing prediction. When two or more variables are correlated, we can use our knowledge of a person’s score on one of the variables to predict his or her likely score on another variable. Because high-school grade point averages are correlated with college grade point averages, if we know a person’s high-school grade point average, we can predict his or her likely college grade point average. Similarly, if we know how many violent video games a child plays, we can predict how aggressively he or she will behave. These predictions will not be perfect, but they will allow us to make a better guess than we would have been able to if we had not known the person’s score on the first variable ahead of time.

Despite their advantages, correlational designs have a very important limitation. This limitation is that they cannot be used to draw conclusions about the causal relationships among the variables that have been measured. An observed correlation between two variables does not necessarily indicate that either one of the variables caused the other. Although many studies have found a correlation between the number of violent video games that people play and the amount of aggressive behaviors they engage in, this does not mean that viewing the video games necessarily caused the aggression. Although one possibility is that playing violent games increases aggression,

another possibility is that the causal direction is exactly opposite to what has been hypothesized. Perhaps increased aggressiveness causes more interest in, and thus increased viewing of, violent games. Although this causal relationship might not seem as logical to you, there is no way to rule out the possibility of such reverse causation on the basis of the observed correlation.

Still another possible explanation for the observed correlation is that it has been produced by the presence of another variable that was not measured in the research. Common-causal variables (also known as third variables) are variables that are not part of the research hypothesis but that cause both the predictor and the outcome variable and thus produce the observed correlation between them ( Figure 1.6 “Correlation and Causality” ). It has been observed that students who sit in the front of a large class get better grades than those who sit in the back of the class. Although this could be because sitting in the front causes the student to take better notes or to understand the material better, the relationship could also be due to a common-causal variable, such as the interest or motivation of the students to do well in the class. Because a student’s interest in the class leads him or her to both get better grades and sit nearer to the teacher, seating position and class grade are correlated, even though neither one caused the other.

Figure 1.6 Correlation and Causality

The correlation between where we sit in a large class and our grade in the class is likely caused by the influence of one or more common-causal variables.

The possibility of common-causal variables must always be taken into account when considering correlational research designs. For instance, in a study that finds a correlation between playing violent video games and aggression, it is possible that a common-causal variable is producing the relationship. Some possibilities include the family background, diet, and hormone levels of the children. Any or all of these potential common-causal variables might be creating the observed correlation between playing violent video games and aggression. Higher levels of the male sex hormone testosterone, for instance, may cause children to both watch more violent TV and behave more aggressively.

I like to think of common-causal variables in correlational research designs as “mystery” variables, since their presence and identity is usually unknown to the researcher because they have not been measured. Because it is not possible to measure every variable that could possibly cause both variables, it is always possible that there is an unknown common-causal variable. For this reason, we are left with the basic limitation of correlational research: Correlation does not imply causation.

Experimental Research

The goal of much research in social psychology is to understand the causal relationships among variables, and for this we use experiments. Experimental research designs are research designs that include the manipulation of a given situation or experience for two or more groups of individuals who are initially created to be equivalent, followed by a measurement of the effect of that experience .

In an experimental research design, the variables of interest are called the independent variables and the dependent variables. The independent variable refers to the situation that is created by the experimenter through the experimental manipulations , and the dependent variable refers to the variable that is measured after the manipulations have occurred . In an experimental research design, the research hypothesis is that the manipulated independent variable (or variables) causes changes in the measured dependent variable (or variables). We can diagram the prediction like this, using an arrow that points in one direction to demonstrate the expected direction of causality:

viewing violence (independent variable) → aggressive behavior (dependent variable)

Consider an experiment conducted by Anderson and Dill (2000), which was designed to directly test the hypothesis that viewing violent video games would cause increased aggressive behavior. In this research, male and female undergraduates from Iowa State University were given a chance to play either a violent video game (Wolfenstein 3D) or a nonviolent video game (Myst). During the experimental session, the participants played the video game that they had been given for 15 minutes. Then, after the play, they participated in a competitive task with another student in which they had a chance to deliver blasts of white noise through the earphones of their opponent. The operational definition of the dependent variable (aggressive behavior) was the level and duration of noise delivered to the opponent. The design and the results of the experiment are shown in Figure 1.7 “An Experimental Research Design (After Anderson & Dill, 2000)” .

Figure 1.7 An Experimental Research Design (After Anderson & Dill, 2000)

Two advantages of the experimental research design are (a) an assurance that the independent variable (also known as the experimental manipulation) occurs prior to the measured dependent variable and (b) the creation of initial equivalence between the conditions of the experiment (in this case, by using random assignment to conditions).

Experimental designs have two very nice features. For one, they guarantee that the independent variable occurs prior to measuring the dependent variable. This eliminates the possibility of reverse causation. Second, the experimental manipulation allows ruling out the possibility of common-causal variables that cause both the independent variable and the dependent variable. In experimental designs, the influence of common-causal variables is controlled, and thus eliminated, by creating equivalence among the participants in each of the experimental conditions before the manipulation occurs.

The most common method of creating equivalence among the experimental conditions is through random assignment to conditions , which involves determining separately for each participant which condition he or she will experience through a random process, such as drawing numbers out of an envelope or using a website such as http://randomizer.org . Anderson and Dill first randomly assigned about 100 participants to each of their two groups. Let’s call them Group A and Group B. Because they used random assignment to conditions, they could be confident that before the experimental manipulation occurred , the students in Group A were, on average , equivalent to the students in Group B on every possible variable , including variables that are likely to be related to aggression, such as family, peers, hormone levels, and diet—and, in fact, everything else.

Then, after they had created initial equivalence, Anderson and Dill created the experimental manipulation—they had the participants in Group A play the violent video game and the participants in Group B the nonviolent video game. Then they compared the dependent variable (the white noise blasts) between the two groups and found that the students who had viewed the violent video game gave significantly longer noise blasts than did the students who had played the nonviolent game. Because they had created initial equivalence between the groups, when the researchers observed differences in the duration of white noise blasts between the two groups after the experimental manipulation, they could draw the conclusion that it was the independent variable (and not some other variable) that caused these differences. The idea is that the only thing that was different between the students in the two groups was which video game they had played.

When we create a situation in which the groups of participants are expected to be equivalent before the experiment begins, when we manipulate the independent variable before we measure the dependent variable, and when we change only the nature of independent variables between the conditions, then we can be confident that it is the independent variable that caused the differences in the dependent variable. Such experiments are said to have high internal validity , where internal validity refers to the confidence with which we can draw conclusions about the causal relationship between the variables .

Despite the advantage of determining causation, experimental research designs do have limitations. One is that the experiments are usually conducted in laboratory situations rather than in the everyday lives of people. Therefore, we do not know whether results that we find in a laboratory setting will necessarily hold up in everyday life. To counter this, in some cases experiments are conducted in everyday settings—for instance, in schools or other organizations . Such field experiments are difficult to conduct because they require a means of creating random assignment to conditions, and this is frequently not possible in natural settings.

A second and perhaps more important limitation of experimental research designs is that some of the most interesting and important social variables cannot be experimentally manipulated. If we want to study the influence of the size of a mob on the destructiveness of its behavior, or to compare the personality characteristics of people who join suicide cults with those of people who do not join suicide cults, these relationships must be assessed using correlational designs because it is simply not possible to manipulate mob size or cult membership.

Factorial Research Designs

Social psychological experiments are frequently designed to simultaneously study the effects of more than one independent variable on a dependent variable. Factorial research designs are experimental designs that have two or more independent variables . By using a factorial design, the scientist can study the influence of each variable on the dependent variable (known as the main effects of the variables) as well as how the variables work together to influence the dependent variable (known as the interaction between the variables). Factorial designs sometimes demonstrate the person by situation interaction.

In one such study, Brian Meier and his colleagues (Meier, Robinson, & Wilkowski, 2006) tested the hypothesis that exposure to aggression-related words would increase aggressive responses toward others. Although they did not directly manipulate the social context, they used a technique common in social psychology in which they primed (i.e., activated) thoughts relating to social settings. In their research, half of their participants were randomly assigned to see words relating to aggression and the other half were assigned to view neutral words that did not relate to aggression. The participants in the study also completed a measure of individual differences in agreeableness —a personality variable that assesses the extent to which the person sees themselves as compassionate, cooperative, and high on other-concern.

Then the research participants completed a task in which they thought they were competing with another student. Participants were told that they should press the space bar on the computer as soon as they heard a tone over their headphones, and the person who pressed the button the fastest would be the winner of the trial. Before the first trial, participants set the intensity of a blast of white noise that would be delivered to the loser of the trial. The participants could choose an intensity ranging from 0 (no noise) to the most aggressive response (10, or 105 decibels). In essence, participants controlled a “weapon” that could be used to blast the opponent with aversive noise, and this setting became the dependent variable. At this point, the experiment ended.

Figure 1.8 A Person-Situation Interaction

In this experiment by Meier, Robinson, and Wilkowski (2006) the independent variables are type of priming (aggression or neutral) and participant agreeableness (high or low). The dependent variable is the white noise level selected (a measure of aggression). The participants who were low in agreeableness became significantly more aggressive after seeing aggressive words, but those high in agreeableness did not.

As you can see in Figure 1.8 “A Person-Situation Interaction” , there was a person by situation interaction. Priming with aggression-related words (the situational variable) increased the noise levels selected by participants who were low on agreeableness, but priming did not increase aggression (in fact, it decreased it a bit) for students who were high on agreeableness. In this study, the social situation was important in creating aggression, but it had different effects for different people.

Deception in Social Psychology Experiments

You may have wondered whether the participants in the video game study and that we just discussed were told about the research hypothesis ahead of time. In fact, these experiments both used a cover story — a false statement of what the research was really about . The students in the video game study were not told that the study was about the effects of violent video games on aggression, but rather that it was an investigation of how people learn and develop skills at motor tasks like video games and how these skills affect other tasks, such as competitive games. The participants in the task performance study were not told that the research was about task performance . In some experiments, the researcher also makes use of an experimental confederate — a person who is actually part of the experimental team but who pretends to be another participant in the study . The confederate helps create the right “feel” of the study, making the cover story seem more real.

In many cases, it is not possible in social psychology experiments to tell the research participants about the real hypotheses in the study, and so cover stories or other types of deception may be used. You can imagine, for instance, that if a researcher wanted to study racial prejudice, he or she could not simply tell the participants that this was the topic of the research because people may not want to admit that they are prejudiced, even if they really are. Although the participants are always told—through the process of informed consent —as much as is possible about the study before the study begins, they may nevertheless sometimes be deceived to some extent. At the end of every research project, however, participants should always receive a complete debriefing in which all relevant information is given, including the real hypothesis, the nature of any deception used, and how the data are going to be used.

Interpreting Research

No matter how carefully it is conducted or what type of design is used, all research has limitations. Any given research project is conducted in only one setting and assesses only one or a few dependent variables. And any one study uses only one set of research participants. Social psychology research is sometimes criticized because it frequently uses college students from Western cultures as participants (Henrich, Heine, & Norenzayan, 2010). But relationships between variables are only really important if they can be expected to be found again when tested using other research designs, other operational definitions of the variables, other participants, and other experimenters, and in other times and settings.

External validity refers to the extent to which relationships can be expected to hold up when they are tested again in different ways and for different people . Science relies primarily upon replication —that is, the repeating of research —to study the external validity of research findings. Sometimes the original research is replicated exactly, but more often, replications involve using new operational definitions of the independent or dependent variables, or designs in which new conditions or variables are added to the original design. And to test whether a finding is limited to the particular participants used in a given research project, scientists may test the same hypotheses using people from different ages, backgrounds, or cultures. Replication allows scientists to test the external validity as well as the limitations of research findings.

In some cases, researchers may test their hypotheses, not by conducting their own study, but rather by looking at the results of many existing studies, using a meta-analysis — a statistical procedure in which the results of existing studies are combined to determine what conclusions can be drawn on the basis of all the studies considered together . For instance, in one meta-analysis, Anderson and Bushman (2001) found that across all the studies they could locate that included both children and adults, college students and people who were not in college, and people from a variety of different cultures, there was a clear positive correlation (about r = .30) between playing violent video games and acting aggressively. The summary information gained through a meta-analysis allows researchers to draw even clearer conclusions about the external validity of a research finding.

Figure 1.9 Some Important Aspects of the Scientific Approach

It is important to realize that the understanding of social behavior that we gain by conducting research is a slow, gradual, and cumulative process. The research findings of one scientist or one experiment do not stand alone—no one study “proves” a theory or a research hypothesis. Rather, research is designed to build on, add to, and expand the existing research that has been conducted by other scientists. That is why whenever a scientist decides to conduct research, he or she first reads journal articles and book chapters describing existing research in the domain and then designs his or her research on the basis of the prior findings. The result of this cumulative process is that over time, research findings are used to create a systematic set of knowledge about social psychology ( Figure 1.9 “Some Important Aspects of the Scientific Approach” ).

Key Takeaways

• Social psychologists study social behavior using an empirical approach. This allows them to discover results that could not have been reliably predicted ahead of time and that may violate our common sense and intuition.
• The variables that form the research hypothesis, known as conceptual variables, are assessed using measured variables by using, for instance, self-report, behavioral, or neuroimaging measures.
• Observational research is research that involves making observations of behavior and recording those observations in an objective manner. In some cases, it may be the only approach to studying behavior.
• Correlational and experimental research designs are based on developing falsifiable research hypotheses.
• Correlational research designs allow prediction but cannot be used to make statements about causality. Experimental research designs in which the independent variable is manipulated can be used to make statements about causality.
• Social psychological experiments are frequently factorial research designs in which the effects of more than one independent variable on a dependent variable are studied.
• All research has limitations, which is why scientists attempt to replicate their results using different measures, populations, and settings and to summarize those results using meta-analyses.

Exercises and Critical Thinking

1. Find journal articles that report observational, correlational, and experimental research designs. Specify the research design, the research hypothesis, and the conceptual and measured variables in each design. 2.

Consider the following variables that might have contributed to teach of the following events. For each one, (a) propose a research hypothesis in which the variable serves as an independent variable and (b) propose a research hypothesis in which the variable serves as a dependent variable.

• Liking another person
• Life satisfaction

Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2001). Effects of violent video games on aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition, aggressive affect, physiological arousal, and prosocial behavior: A meta-analytic review of the scientific literature. Psychological Science, 12 (5), 353–359.

Anderson, C. A., & Dill, K. E. (2000). Video games and aggressive thoughts, feelings, and behavior in the laboratory and in life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78 (4), 772–790.

Bushman, B. J., & Huesmann, L. R. (2010). Aggression. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 833–863). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Eisenberger, N. I., Lieberman, M. D., & Williams, K. D. (2003). Does rejection hurt? An fMRI study of social exclusion. Science, 302 (5643), 290–292.

Festinger, L., Riecken, H. W., & Schachter, S. (1956). When prophecy fails: A social and psychological study of a modern group that predicted the destruction of the world . Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Greene, J. D., Sommerville, R. B., Nystrom, L. E., Darley, J. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment. Science, 293 (5537), 2105–2108.

Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33 (2–3), 61–83.

Lieberman, M. D., Hariri, A., Jarcho, J. M., Eisenberger, N. I., & Bookheimer, S. Y. (2005). An fMRI investigation of race-related amygdala activity in African-American and Caucasian-American individuals. Nature Neuroscience, 8 (6), 720–722.

Lilienfeld, S. O. (2011, June 13). Public skepticism of psychology: Why many people perceive the study of human behavior as unscientific. American Psychologist. doi: 10.1037/a0023963

Meier, B. P., Robinson, M. D., & Wilkowski, B. M. (2006). Turning the other cheek: Agreeableness and the regulation of aggression-related crimes. Psychological Science, 17 (2), 136–142.

Morewedge, C. K., Gray, K., & Wegner, D. M. (2010). Perish the forethought: Premeditation engenders misperceptions of personal control. In R. R. Hassin, K. N. Ochsner, & Y. Trope (Eds.), Self-control in society, mind, and brain (pp. 260–278). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Ochsner, K. N., Bunge, S. A., Gross, J. J., & Gabrieli, J. D. E. (2002). Rethinking feelings: An fMRI study of the cognitive regulation of emotion. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14 (8), 1215–1229.

Preston, J., & Wegner, D. M. (2007). The eureka error: Inadvertent plagiarism by misattributions of effort. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92 (4), 575–584.

Richeson, J. A., Baird, A. A., Gordon, H. L., Heatherton, T. F., Wyland, C. L., Trawalter, S., Richeson, J. A., Baird, A. A., Gordon, H. L., Heatherton, T. F., Wyland, C. L., Trawalter, S., et al.#8230.

Shelton, J. N. (2003). An fMRI investigation of the impact of interracial contact on executive function. Nature Neuroscience, 6 (12), 1323–1328.

Principles of Social Psychology Copyright © 2015 by University of Minnesota is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Front Psychol

The Practice of Experimental Psychology: An Inevitably Postmodern Endeavor

The aim of psychology is to understand the human mind and behavior. In contemporary psychology, the method of choice to accomplish this incredibly complex endeavor is the experiment. This dominance has shaped the whole discipline from the self-concept as an empirical science and its very epistemological and theoretical foundations, via research practice and the scientific discourse to teaching. Experimental psychology is grounded in the scientific method and positivism, and these principles, which are characteristic for modern thinking, are still upheld. Despite this apparently stalwart adherence to modern principles, experimental psychology exhibits a number of aspects which can best be described as facets of postmodern thinking although they are hardly acknowledged as such. Many psychologists take pride in being “real natural scientists” because they conduct experiments, but it is particularly difficult for psychologists to evade certain elements of postmodern thinking in view of the specific nature of their subject matter. Postmodernism as a philosophy emerged in the 20th century as a response to the perceived inadequacy of the modern approach and as a means to understand the complexities, ambiguities, and contradictions of the times. Therefore, postmodernism offers both valuable insights into the very nature of experimental psychology and fruitful ideas on improving experimental practice to better reflect the complexities and ambiguities of human mind and behavior. Analyzing experimental psychology along postmodern lines begins by discussing the implications of transferring the scientific method from fields with rather narrowly defined phenomena—the natural sciences—to a much broader and more heterogeneous class of complex phenomena, namely the human mind and behavior. This ostensibly modern experimental approach is, however, per se riddled with postmodern elements: (re-)creating phenomena in an experimental setting, including the hermeneutic processes of generating hypotheses and interpreting results, is no carbon copy of “reality” but rather an active construction which reflects irrevocably the pre-existing ideas of the investigator. These aspects, analyzed by using postmodern concepts like hyperreality and simulacra, did not seep in gradually but have been present since the very inception of experimental psychology, and they are necessarily inherent in its philosophy of science. We illustrate this theoretical analysis with the help of two examples, namely experiments on free will and visual working memory. The postmodern perspective reveals some pitfalls in the practice of experimental psychology. Furthermore, we suggest that accepting the inherently fuzzy nature of theoretical constructs in psychology and thinking more along postmodern lines would actually clarify many theoretical problems in experimental psychology.

Introduction

Postmodernism is, in essence, an attempt to achieve greater clarity in our perception, thinking, and behavior by scrutinizing their larger contexts and preconditions, based on the inextricably intertwined levels of both the individual and the society. Psychology also studies the human mind and behavior, which indicates that psychology should dovetail with postmodern approaches. In the 1990s and early 2000s, several attempts were made to introduce postmodern thought as potentially very fruitful ideas into general academic psychology ( Jager, 1991 ; Kvale, 1992 ; Holzman and Morss, 2000 ; Holzman, 2006 ). However, overall they were met with little response.

Postmodern thoughts have been taken up by several fringe areas of academic psychology, e.g., psychoanalysis ( Leffert, 2007 ; Jiménez, 2015 ; but see Holt, 2005 ), some forms of therapy and counseling ( Ramey and Grubb, 2009 ; Hansen, 2015 ), humanistic ( Krippner, 2001 ), feminist and gender ( Hare-Mustin and Marecek, 1988 ; Sinacore and Enns, 2005 ), or cultural psychology ( Gemignani and Peña, 2007 ).

However, there is resistance against suggestions to incorporate postmodern ideas into the methodology and the self-perception of psychology as academic—and scientific!—discipline. In fact, postmodern approaches are often rejected vehemently, sometimes even very vocally. For instance, Gergen (2001) argued that the “core tenets” of postmodernism are not at odds with those of scientific psychology but rather that they can enrich the discipline by opening up new possibilities. His suggestions were met with reservation and were even outright rejected on the following grounds: postmodernism, “like anthrax of the intellect, if allowed [our italics] into mainstream psychology, […] will poison the field” ( Locke, 2002 , 458), that it “wishes to return psychology to a prescientific subset of philosophy” ( Kruger, 2002 , 456), and that psychology “needs fewer theoretical and philosophical orientations, not more” ( Hofmann, 2002 , 462; see also Gergen ’s, 2001 , replies to the less biased and more informed commentaries on his article).

In the following years, and continuing the so-called science wars of the 1990s ( Segerstråle, 2000 ), several other attacks were launched against a perceived rise or even dominance of postmodern thought in psychology. Held(2007 ; see also the rebuttal by Martin and Sugarman, 2009 ) argued that anything postmodern would undermine rationality and destroy academic psychology. Similarly, postmodernism was identified—together with “radical environmentalism” and “pseudoscience” among other things—as a “key threat to scientific psychology” ( Lilienfeld, 2010 , 282), or as “inimical to progress in the psychology of science” ( Capaldi and Proctor, 2013 , 331). The following advice was given to psychologists: “We [psychologists] should also push back against the pernicious creep of these untested concepts into our field” ( Tarescavage, 2020 , 4). Furthermore, the term “postmodern” is even employed as an all-purpose invective in a popular scientific book by psychologist Steven Pinker (2018) .

Therefore, it seems that science and experimental psychology on the one hand and postmodern thinking on the other are irreconcilable opposites. However, following Gergen (2001) and Holtz (2020) , we argue that this dichotomy is only superficial because postmodernism is often misunderstood. A closer look reveals that experimental psychology contains many postmodern elements. Even more, there is reason to assume that a postmodern perspective may be beneficial for academic psychology: First, the practice of experimental psychology would be improved by integrating postmodern thinking because it reveals a side of the human psyche for which experimental psychology is mostly blind. Second, the postmodern perspective can tell us much about the epistemological and social background of experimental psychology and how this affects our understanding of the human psyche.

A Postmodern Perspective on Experimental Psychology

Experimental psychology and the modern scientific worldview.

It lies within the nature of humans to try to find out more about themselves and their world, but the so-called Scientific Revolution of the early modern period marks the beginning of a new era in this search for knowledge. The Scientific Revolution, which has led to impressive achievements in the natural sciences and the explanation of the physical world (e.g., Olby et al., 1991 ; Henry, 1997 ; Cohen, 2015 ; Osterlind, 2019 ), is based on the following principle: to “measure what can be measured and make measurable what cannot be measured.” This famous appeal—falsely attributed to Galileo Galilei but actually from the 19th century ( Kleinert, 2009 )—illustrates the two fundamental principles of modern science: First, the concept of “measurement” encompasses the idea that phenomena can be quantified, i.e., expressed numerically. Second, the concept of “causal connections” pertains to the idea that consistent, non-random relationships can be established between measurable phenomena. Quantification allows that relationships between phenomena can be expressed, calculated, and predicted in precise mathematical and numerical terms.

However, there are two important issues to be aware of. First, while it is not difficult to measure “evident” aspects, such as mass and distance, more complex phenomena cannot be measured easily. In such cases, it is therefore necessary to find ways of making these “elusive” phenomena measurable. This can often only be achieved by reducing complex phenomena to their simpler—and measurable!—elements. For instance, in order to measure memory ability precisely, possible effects of individual preexisting knowledge which introduce random variance and thus impreciseness have to be eliminated. Indeed, due to this reason, in many memory experiments, meaningless syllables are used as study material.

Second, it is not difficult to scientifically prove a causal relationship between a factor and an outcome if the relationship is simple, that is, if there is only one single factor directly influencing the outcome. In such a case, showing that a manipulation of the factor causes a change in the outcome is clear evidence for a causal relationship because there are no other factors which may influence the outcome as well. However, in situations where many factors influence an outcome in a complex, interactive way, proving a causal relationship is much more difficult. To prove the causal effect of one factor in such a situation the effects of all other factors—called confounding factors from the perspective of the factor of interest—have to be eliminated so that a change in the outcome can be truly attributed to a causal effect of the factor of interest. However, this has an important implication: The investigator has to divide the factors present in a given situation into interesting versus non-interesting factors with respect to the current context of the experiment. Consequently, while experiments reveal something about local causal relationships, they do not necessarily provide hints about the net effect of all causal factors present in the given situation.

The adoption of the principles of modern science has also changed psychology. Although the beginnings of psychology—as the study of the psyche —date back to antiquity, psychology as an academic discipline was established in the mid to late 19th century. This enterprise was also inspired by the success of the natural sciences, and psychology was explicitly modeled after this example by Wilhelm Wundt—the “father of experimental psychology”—although he emphasized the close ties to the humanities as well. The experiment quickly became the method of choice. There were other, more hermeneutic approaches during this formative phase of modern psychology, such as psychoanalysis or introspection according to the Würzburg School, but their impact on academic psychology was limited. Behaviorism emerged as a direct reaction against these perceived unscientific approaches, and its proponents emphasized the scientific character of their “new philosophy of psychology.” It is crucial to note that in doing so they also emphasized the importance of the experiment and the necessity of quantifying directly observable behavior in psychological research. Behaviorism quickly became a very influential paradigm which shaped academic psychology. Gestalt psychologists, whose worldview is radically different from behaviorism, also relied on experiments in their research. Cognitive psychology, which followed, complemented, and partly superseded behaviorism, relies heavily on the experiment as a means to gain insight into mental processes, although other methods such as modeling are employed as well. Interestingly, there is a fundamental difference between psychoanalysis and humanistic psychology, which do not rely on the experiment, and the other above-mentioned approaches as the former focus on the psychic functioning of individuals, whereas the latter focus more on global laws of psychic functioning across individuals. This is reflected in the fact that psychological laws in experimental psychology are established on the arithmetic means across examined participants—a difference we will elaborate on later in more detail. Today, psychology is the scientific —in the sense of empirical-quantitative—study of the human mind and behavior, and the experiment is often considered the gold standard in psychological research (e.g., Mandler, 2007 ; Goodwin, 2015 ; Leahey, 2017 ).

The experiment is closely associated with the so-called scientific method ( Haig, 2014 ; Nola and Sankey, 2014 ) and the epistemological tenets philosophy of positivism—in the sense as Martin (2003) ; Michell (2003) , and Teo (2018) explain—which sometimes exhibit characteristics of naïve empiricism. Roughly speaking, the former consists of observing, formulating hypotheses, and testing these hypotheses in experiments. The latter postulates that knowledge is based on sensory experience, that it is testable, independent of the investigator and therefore objective as it accurately depicts the world as it is. This means that in principle all of reality can not only be measured but eventually be entirely explained by science. This worldview is attacked by postmodern thinkers who contend that the world is far more complex and that the modern scientific approach cannot explain all of reality and its phenomena.

The Postmodern Worldview

Postmodern thinking (e.g., Bertens, 1995 ; Sim, 2011 ; Aylesworth, 2015 ) has gained momentum since the 1980s, and although neither the term “postmodernism” nor associated approaches can be defined in a unanimous or precise way, they are characterized by several intertwined concepts, attitudes, and aims. The most basic trait is a general skepticism and the willingness to question literally everything from the ground up—even going so far as to question not only the foundation of any idea, but also the question itself. This includes the own context, the chosen premises, thinking, and the use of language. Postmodernism therefore has a lot in common with science’s curiosity to understand the world: the skeptical attitude paired with the desire to discover how things really are.

Postmodern investigations often start by looking at the language and the broader context of certain phenomena due to the fact that language is the medium in which many of our mental activities—which subsequently influence our behavior—take place. Thus, the way we talk reveals something about how and why we think and act. Additionally, we communicate about phenomena using language, which in turn means that this discourse influences the way we think about or see those phenomena. Moreover, this discourse is embedded in a larger social and historical context, which also reflects back on the use of language and therefore on our perception and interpretation of certain phenomena.

Generally speaking, postmodern investigations aim at detecting and explaining how the individual is affected by societal influences and their underlying, often hidden ideas, structures, or mechanisms. As these influences are often fuzzy, contradictory, and dependent on their context, the individual is subject to a multitude of different causalities, and this already complex interplay is further complicated by the personal history, motivations, aims, or ways of thinking of the individual. Postmodernism attempts to understand all of this complexity as it is in its entirety.

The postmodern approaches have revealed three major general tendencies which characterize the contemporary world: First, societies and the human experience since the 20th century have displayed less coherence and conversely a greater diversity than the centuries before in virtually all areas, e.g., worldviews, modes of thinking, societal structures, or individual behavior. Second, this observation leads postmodern thinkers to the conclusion that the grand narratives which dominated the preceding centuries and shaped whole societies by providing frames of references have lost—at least partially—their supremacy and validity. Examples are religious dogmas, nationalism, industrialization, the notion of linear progress—and modern science because it works according to certain fundamental principles. Third, the fact that different but equally valid perspectives, especially on social phenomena or even whole worldviews, are possible and can coexist obviously affects the concepts of “truth,” “reality,” and “reason” in such a way that these concepts lose their immutable, absolute, and universal or global character, simply because they are expressions and reflections of a certain era, society, or worldview.

At this point, however, it is necessary to clarify a common misconception: Interpreting truth, reality, or reason as relative, subjective, and context-dependent—as opposed to absolute, objective, and context-independent—does naturally neither mean that anything can be arbitrarily labeled as true, real, or reasonable, nor, vice versa, that something cannot be true, real, or reasonable. For example, the often-quoted assumption that postmodernism apparently even denies the existence of gravity or its effects as everything can be interpreted arbitrarily or states that we cannot elucidate these phenomena with adequate accuracy because everything is open to any interpretation ( Sokal, 1996 ), completely misses the point.

First, postmodernism is usually not concerned with the laws of physics and the inanimate world as such but rather focuses on the world of human experience. However, the phenomenon itself, e.g., gravity, is not the same as our scientific knowledge of phenomena—our chosen areas of research, methodological paradigms, data, theories, and explanations—or our perception of phenomena, which are both the results of human activities. Therefore, the social context influences our scientific knowledge, and in that sense scientific knowledge is a social construction ( Hodge, 1999 ).

Second, phenomena from human experience, although probably more dependent on the social context than physical phenomena, cannot be interpreted arbitrarily either. The individual context—such as the personal history, motivations, aims, or worldviews—determines whether a certain behavior makes sense for a certain individual in a certain situation. As there are almost unlimited possible backgrounds, this might seem completely random or arbitrary from an overall perspective. But from the perspective of an individual the phenomenon in question may be explained entirely by a theory for a specific—and not universal—context.

As described above, the postmodern meta-perspective directly deals with human experience and is therefore especially relevant for psychology. Moreover, any discipline—including the knowledge it generates—will certainly benefit from understanding its own (social) mechanisms and implications. We will show below that postmodern thinking not only elucidates the broader context of psychology as an academic discipline but rather that experimental psychology exhibits a number of aspects which can best be described as facets of postmodern thinking although they are not acknowledged as such.

The Postmodern Context of Experimental Psychology

Paradoxically, postmodern elements have been present since the very beginning of experimental psychology although postmodernism gained momentum only decades later. One of the characteristics of postmodernism is the transplantation of certain elements from their original context to new contexts, e.g., the popularity of “Eastern” philosophies and practices in contemporary “Western” societies. These different elements are often juxtaposed and combined to create something new, e.g., new “westernized” forms of yoga ( Shearer, 2020 ).

Similarly, the founders of modern academic psychology took up the scientific method, which was originally developed in the context of the natural sciences, and transplanted it to the study of the human psyche in the hope to repeat the success of the natural sciences. By contrast, methods developed specifically in the context of psychology such as psychoanalysis ( Wax, 1995 ) or introspection according to the Würzburg School ( Hackert and Weger, 2018 ) have gained much less ground in academic psychology. The way we understand both the psyche and psychology has been shaped to a great extent by the transfer of the principles of modern science, namely quantitative measurement and experimental methods, although it is not evident per se that this is the best approach to elucidate mental and behavioral phenomena. Applying the methods of the natural sciences to a new and different context, namely to phenomena pertaining to the human psyche , is a truly postmodern endeavor because it juxtaposes two quite distinct areas and merges them into something new—experimental psychology.

The postmodern character of experimental psychology becomes evident on two levels: First, the subject matter—the human psyche —exhibits a postmodern character since mental and behavioral phenomena are highly dependent on the idiosyncratic contexts of the involved individuals, which makes it impossible to establish unambiguous general laws to describe them. Second, experimental psychology itself displays substantial postmodern traits because both its method and the knowledge it produces—although seemingly objective and rooted in the modern scientific worldview—inevitably contain postmodern elements, as will be shown below.

The Experiment as Simulacrum

The term “simulacrum” basically means “copy,” often in the sense of “inferior copy” or “phantasm/illusion.” However, in postmodern usage “simulacrum” has acquired a more nuanced and concrete meaning. “Simulacrum” is a key term in the work of postmodern philosopher Jean Baudrillard, who arguably presented the most elaborate theory on simulacra (1981/1994). According to Baudrillard, a simulacrum “is the reflection of a profound [‘real’] reality” (16/6). Simulacra, however, are more than identical carbon copies because they gain a life of their own and become “real” in the sense of becoming an own entity. For example, the personality a pop star shows on stage is not “real” in the sense that it is their “normal,” off-stage personality, but it is certainly “real” in the sense that it is perceived by the audience even if they are aware that it might be an “artificial” personality. Two identical cars can also be “different” for one might be used as a means of transportation while the other might be a status symbol. Even an honest video documentation of a certain event is not simply a copy of the events that took place because it lies within the medium video that only certain sections can be recorded from a certain perspective. Additionally, the playback happens in other contexts as the original event, which may also alter the perception of the viewer.

The post-structuralist—an approach closely associated with postmodernism—philosopher Roland Barthes pointed out another important aspect of simulacra. He contended that in order to understand something—an “object” in Barthes’ terminology—we necessarily create simulacra because we “ reconstruct [our italics] an ‘object’ in such a way as to manifest thereby the rules of functioning [⋯] of this object” ( Barthes, 1963 , 213/214). In other words, when we investigate an object—any phenomenon, either material, mental, or social—we have to perceive it first. This means that we must have some kind of mental representation of the phenomenon/object—and it is crucial to note that this representation is not the same thing as the “real” object itself. All our mental operations are therefore not performed on the “real” object but on mental representations of the object. We decompose a phenomenon in order to understand it, that is, we try to identify its components. In doing so, we effect a change in the object because our phenomenon is no longer the original phenomenon “as it is” for we are performing a mental operation on it, thereby transforming the original phenomenon. Identifying components may be simple, e.g., dividing a tree into roots, trunk, branches, and leaves may seem obvious or even “natural” but it is nevertheless us as investigators who create this structure—the tree itself is probably not aware of it. Now that we have established this structure, we are able to say that the tree consists of several components and name these components. Thus, we have introduced “new” elements into our understanding of the tree. This is the important point, even though the elements, i.e., the branches and leaves themselves “as they are,” have naturally always been “present.” Our understanding of “tree” has therefore changed completely because a tree is now something which is composed of several elements. In that sense, we have changed the original phenomenon by adding something—and this has all happened in our thinking and not in the tree itself. It is also possible to find different structures and different components for the tree, e.g., the brown and the green, which shows that we construct this knowledge.

Next, we can investigate the components to see how they interact with and relate to each other and to the whole system. Also, we can work out their functions and determine the conditions under which a certain event will occur. We can even expand the scope of our investigation and examine the tree in the context of its ecosystem. But no matter what we do or how sophisticated our investigation becomes, everything said above remains true here, too, because neither all these actions listed above nor the knowledge we gain from them are the object itself. Rather, we have added something to the object and the more we know about our object, the more knowledge we have constructed. This addition is what science—gaining knowledge—is all about. Or in the words of Roland Barthes: “the simulacrum is intellect added to object, and this addition has an anthropological value, in that it is man himself, his history, his situation, his freedom and the very resistance which nature offers to his mind” (1963/1972, 214/215).

In principle, this holds truth regarding all scientific investigations. But the more complex phenomena are, the more effort and personal contribution is required on behalf of the investigator to come up with structures, theories, or explanations. Paraphrasing Barthes: When dealing with complex phenomena, more intellect must be added to the object, which means in turn that there are more possibilities for different approaches and perspectives, that is, the constructive element becomes larger. As discussed previously, this does not mean that investigative and interpretative processes are arbitrary. But it is clear from this train of thought that “objectivity” or “truth” in a “positivist,” naïve empiricist “realist,” or absolute sense are not attainable. Nevertheless, we argue here that this is not a drawback, as many critics of postmodernism contend (see above), but rather an advantage because it allows more accurate scientific investigations of true-to-life phenomena, which are typically complex in the case of psychology.

The concepts of simulacra by Baudrillard and Barthes can be combined to provide a description of the experiment in psychology. Accordingly, our understanding of the concept of the “simulacrum” entails that scientific processes—indeed all investigative processes—necessarily need to duplicate the object of their investigation in order to understand it. In doing so, constructive elements are necessarily introduced. These elements are of a varying nature, which means that investigations of one and the same phenomenon may differ from each other and different investigations may find out different things about the phenomenon in question. These investigations then become entities on their own—in the Baudrillardian sense—and therefore simulacra.

In a groundbreaking article on “the meaning and limits of exact science” physicist Max Planck stated that “[a]n experiment is a question which science poses to nature, and a measurement is the recording of nature’s answer” ( Planck, 1949 , 325). The act of “asking a question” implies that the person asking the question has at least a general idea of what the answer might look like ( Heidegger, 1953 , §2). For example: When asking someone for their name, we obviously do not know what they are called, but we assume that they have a name and we also have an idea of how the concept “name” works. Otherwise we could not even conceive, let alone formulate, and pose our question. This highlights how a certain degree of knowledge and understanding of a concept is necessary so that we are able to ask questions about it. Likewise, we need to have a principal idea or assumption of possible mechanisms if we want to find out how more complex phenomena function. It is—at least at the beginning—irrelevant whether these ideas are factually correct or entirely wrong, for without them we would be unable to approach our subject matter in the first place.

The context of the investigator—their general worldview, their previous knowledge and understanding, and their social situation—obviously plays an important part in the process of forming a question which can be asked in the current research context. Although this context may be analyzed along postmodern lines in order to find out how it affects research, production of knowledge, and—when the knowledge is applied—possible (social) consequences, there is a much more profound implication pertaining to the very nature of the experiment as a means to gain knowledge.

Irrespective of whether it is a simple experiment in physics such as Galileo Galilei’s or an experiment on a complex phenomenon from social or cognitive psychology, the experiment is a situation which is specifically designed to answer a certain type of questions, usually causal relationships, such as: “Does A causally affect B?” Excluding the extremely complex discussion on the nature of causality and causation (e.g., Armstrong, 1997 ; Pearl, 2009 ; Paul and Hall, 2013 ), it is crucial to note that we need the experiment as a tool to answer this question. Although we may theorize about a phenomenon and infer causal relationships simply by observing, we cannot—at least according to the prevailing understanding of causality in the sciences—prove causal relationships without the experiment.

The basic idea of the experiment is to create conditions which differ in only one single factor which is suspected as a causal factor for an effect. The influence of all other potential causal relationships is kept identical because they are considered as confounding factors which are irrelevant from the perspective of the research question of the current experiment. Then, if a difference is found in the outcome between the experimental conditions, this is considered as proof that the aspect in question exerts indeed a causal effect. This procedure and the logic behind it are not difficult to understand. However, a closer look reveals that this is actually far from simple or obvious.

To begin with, an experiment is nothing which occurs “naturally” but a situation created for a specific purpose, i.e., an “artificial” situation, because other causal factors exerting influence in “real” life outside the laboratory are deliberately excluded and considered as “confounding” factors. This in itself shows that the experiment contains a substantial postmodern element because instead of creating something it rather re- creates it. This re-creation is of course based on phenomena from the “profound” reality—in the Baudrillardian sense—since the explicit aim is to find out something about this profound reality and not to create something new or something else. However, as stated above, this re-creation must contain constructive elements reflecting the presuppositions, conceptual-theoretical assumptions, and aims of the investigator. By focusing on one factor and by reducing the complexity of the profound reality, the practical operationalization and realization thus reflect both the underlying conceptual structure and the anticipated outcome as they are specifically designed to test for the suspected but hidden or obscured causal relationships.

At this point, another element becomes relevant, namely the all-important role of language, which is emphasized in postmodern thinking (e.g., Harris, 2005 ). Without going into the intricacies of semiotics, there is an explanatory gap ( Chalmers, 2005 )—to borrow a phrase from philosophy of mind—between the phenomenon on the one hand and the linguistic and/or mental representation of it on the other. This relationship is far from clear and it is therefore problematic to assume that our linguistic or mental representations—our words and the concepts they designate—are identical with the phenomena themselves. Although we cannot, at least according to our present knowledge and understanding, fully bridge this gap, it is essential to be aware of it in order to avoid some pitfalls, as will be shown in the examples below.

Even a seemingly simple word like “tree”—to take up once more our previous example—refers to a tangible phenomenon because there are trees “out there.” However, they come in all shapes and sizes, there are different kinds of trees, and every single one of them may be labeled as “tree.” Furthermore, trees are composed of different parts, and the leaf—although part of the tree—has its own word, i.e., linguistic and mental representation. Although the leaf is part of the tree—at least according to our concepts—it is unclear whether “tree” also somehow encompasses “leaf.” The same holds true for the molecular, atomic, or even subatomic levels, where there “is” no tree. Excluding the extremely complex ontological implications of this problem, it has become clear that we are referring to a certain level of granularity when using the word “tree.” The level of granularity reflects the context, aims, and concepts of the investigator, e.g., an investigation of the rain forest as an ecosystem will ignore the subatomic level.

How does this concern experimental psychology? Psychology studies intangible phenomena, namely mental and behavioral processes, such as cognition, memory, learning, motivation, emotion, perception, consciousness, etc. It is important to note that these terms designate theoretical constructs as, for example, memory cannot be observed directly. We may provide the subjects of an experiment a set of words to learn and observe later how many words they reproduce correctly. A theoretical construct therefore describes such relationships between stimulus and behavior, and we may draw conclusions from this observable data about memory. But neither the observable behavior of the subject, the resulting data, nor our conclusions are identical with memory itself.

This train of thought demonstrates the postmodern character of experimental psychology because we construct our knowledge. But there is more to it than that: Even by trying to define a theoretical construct as exactly as possible—e.g., memory as “the process of maintaining information over time” ( Matlin, 2012 , 505) or “the means by which we retain and draw on our past experiences to use this information in the present” ( Sternberg and Sternberg, 2011 , 187)—the explanatory gap between representation and phenomenon cannot be bridged. Rather, it becomes even more complicated because theoretical constructs are composed of other theoretical constructs, which results in some kind of self-referential circularity where constructs are defined by other constructs which refer to further constructs. In the definitions above, for instance, hardly any key term is self-evident and unambiguous for there are different interpretations of the constructs “process,” “maintaining,” “information,” “means,” “retain,” “draw on,” “experiences,” and “use” according to their respective contexts. Only the temporal expressions “over time,” “past,” and “present” are probably less ambiguous here because they are employed as non-technical, everyday terms. However, the definitions above are certainly not entirely incomprehensible—in fact, they are rather easy to understand in everyday language—and it is quite clear what the authors intend to express . The italics indicate constructive elements, which demonstrates that attempts to give a precise definition in the language of science result in fuzziness and self-reference.

Based on a story by Jorge Luis Borges, Baudrillard (1981) found an illustrative allegory: a map so precise that it portrays everything in perfect detail—but therefore inevitably so large that it shrouds the entire territory it depicts. Similarly, Taleb (2007) coined the term “ludic fallacy” for mistaking the model/map—in our context: experiments in psychology—for the reality/territory, that is, a mental or behavioral phenomenon. Similar to the functionality of a seemingly “imprecise” map which contains only the relevant landmarks so the user may find their way, the fuzziness of language poses no problems in everyday communication. So why is it a problem in experimental psychology? Since the nature of theoretical constructs in psychology lies precisely in their very fuzziness, the aim of reaching a high degree of granularity and precision in experimental psychology seems to be unattainable (see the various failed attempts to create “perfect” languages which might depict literally everything “perfectly,” e.g., Carapezza and D’Agostino, 2010 ).

Without speculating about ontic or epistemic implications, it is necessary to be aware of the explanatory gap and to refrain from identifying the experiment and the underlying operationalization with the theoretical construct. Otherwise, this gap is “filled” unintentionally and uncontrollably if the results of an experiment are taken as valid proof for a certain theoretical construct, which is actually fuzzy and potentially operationalizable in a variety of ways. If this is not acknowledged, words, such as “memory,” become merely symbols devoid of concrete meaning, much like a glass bead game—or in postmodern terminology: a hyperreality.

Experiments and Hyperreality

“Hyperreality” is another key term in the work of Jean Baudrillard (1981) and it denotes a concept closely related to the simulacrum. Accordingly, in modern society the simulacra are ubiquitous and they form a system of interconnected simulacra which refer to each other rather than to the real, thereby possibly hiding or replacing the real. Consequently, the simulacra become real in their own right and form a “more real” reality, namely the hyperreality. One may or may not accept Baudrillard’s conception, especially the all-embracing social and societal implications, but the core concept of “hyperreality” is nevertheless a fruitful tool to analyze experimental psychology. We have already seen that the experiment displays many characteristics of a simulacrum, so it is not surprising that the concept of hyperreality is applicable here as well, although in a slightly different interpretation than Baudrillard’s.

The hyperreal character of the experiment can be discussed on two levels: the experiment itself and the discourse wherein it is embedded.

On the level of the experiment itself, two curious observations must be taken into account. First, and in contrast to the natural sciences where the investigator is human and the subject matter (mostly) non-human and usually inanimate, in psychology both the investigator and the subject matter are human. This means that the subjects of the experiment, being autonomous persons, are not malleable or completely controllable by the investigator because they bring their own background, history, worldview, expectations, and motivations. They interpret the situation—the experiment—and act accordingly, but not necessarily in the way the investigator had planned or anticipated ( Smedslund, 2016 ). Therefore, the subjects create their own versions of the experiment, or, in postmodern terminology, a variety of simulacra, which may be more or less compatible with the framework of the investigator. This holds true for all subjects of an experiment, which means that the experiment as a whole may also be interpreted as an aggregation of interconnected simulacra—a hyperreality.

The hyperreal character becomes even more evident because what contributes in the end to the interpretation of the results of the experiment are not the actual performances and results of the individual subjects as they were intended by them but rather how their performances and results are handled, seen, and interpreted by the investigator. Even if the investigator tries to be as faithful as possible and aims at an exact and unbiased measurement—i.e., an exact copy—there are inevitably constructive elements which introduce uncertainty into the experiment. Investigators can never be certain what the subjects were actually doing and thinking so they must necessarily work with interpretations. Or in postmodern terms: Because the actual performances and results of the subjects are not directly available the investigators must deal with simulacra. These simulacra become the investigators’ reality and thus any further treatment—statistical analyses, interpretations, or discussions—becomes a hyperreality, that is, a set of interconnected simulacra which have become “real.”

On the level of the discourse wherein the experiment is embedded, another curious aspect also demonstrates the hyperreal character of experimental psychology. Psychology is, according to the standard definition, the scientific study of mental and behavioral processes of the individual (e.g., Gerrig, 2012 ). This definition contains two actually contradictory elements. On the one hand, the focus is on processes of the individual. On the other hand, the—scientific—method to elucidate these processes does not look at individuals per se but aggregates their individual experiences and transforms them into a “standard” experience. The results from experiments, our knowledge of the human psyche, reflect psychological functioning at the level of the mean across individuals. And even if we assume that the mean is only an estimator and not an exact description or prediction, the question remains open how de-individualized observations are related to the experience of an individual. A general mechanism, a law—which was discovered by abstracting from a multitude of individual experiences—is then ( re -)imposed in the opposite direction back onto the individual. In other words, a simulacrum—namely, the result of an experiment—is viewed and treated as reality, thus becoming hyperreal. Additionally, and simply because it is considered universally true, this postulated law acquires thereby a certain validity and “truth”—often irrespective of its actual, factual, or “profound” truth—on its own. Therefore, it can become impossible to distinguish between “profound” and “simulacral” truth, which is the hallmark of hyperreality.

Measuring the Capacity of the Visual Working Memory

Vision is an important sensory modality and there is extensive research on this area ( Hutmacher, 2019 ). Much of our daily experience is shaped by seeing a rich and complex world around us, and it is therefore an interesting question how much visual information we can store and process. Based on the development of a seminal experimental paradigm, Luck and Vogel (1997) have shown that visual working memory has a storage capacity of about four items. This finding is reported in many textbooks (e.g., Baddeley, 2007 ; Parkin, 2013 ; Goldstein, 2015 ) and has almost become a truism in cognitive psychology.

The experimental paradigm developed by Luck and Vogel (1997) is a prime example of an experiment which closely adheres to the scientific principles outlined above. In order to make a very broad and fuzzy phenomenon measurable, simple abstract forms are employed as visual stimuli—such as colored squares, triangles, or lines, usually on a “neutral,” e.g., gray, background—which can be counted in order to measure the capacity of visual working memory. Reducing the exuberant diversity of the “outside visual world” to a few abstract geometric forms is an extremely artificial situation. The obvious contrast between simple geometrical forms and the rich panorama of the “real” visual world illustrates the pitfalls of controlling supposed confounding variables, namely the incontrollable variety of the “real” world and how we see it. Precisely by abstracting and by excluding potential confounding variables it is possible to count the items and to make the capacity of the visual working memory measurable. But in doing so the original phenomenon—seeing the whole world—is lost. In other words: A simulacrum has been created.

The establishment of the experimental paradigm by Luck and Vogel has led to much research and sparked an extensive discussion how the limitation to only four items might be explained (see the summaries by Brady et al., 2011 ; Luck and Vogel, 2013 ; Ma et al., 2014 ; Schurgin, 2018 ). However, critically, several studies have shown that the situation is different when real-world objects are used as visual stimuli rather than simple abstract forms, revealing that the capacity of the visual working memory is higher for real-world objects ( Endress and Potter, 2014 ; Brady et al., 2016 ; Schurgin et al., 2018 ; Robinson et al., 2020 ; also Schurgin and Brady, 2019 ). Such findings show that the discourse about the mechanisms behind the limitations of the visual working memory is mostly about an artificial phenomenon which has no counterpart in “reality”—the perfect example of a hyperreality.

This hyperreal character does not mean that the findings of Luck and Vogel (1997) or similar experiments employing artificial stimuli are irrelevant or not “true.” The results are true—but it is a local truth, only valid for the specific context of specific experiments, and not a global truth which applies to the visual working memory in general . That is, speaking about “visual working memory” based on the paradigm of Luck and Vogel is a mistake because it is actually about “visual working memory for simple abstract geometrical forms in front of a gray background.”

Free Will and Experimental Psychology

The term “free will” expresses the idea of having “a significant kind of control [italics in the original] over one’s actions” ( O’Connor and Franklin, 2018 , n.p.). This concept has occupied a central position in Western philosophy since antiquity because it has far-reaching consequences for our self-conception as humans and our position in the world, including questions of morality, responsibility, and the nature of legal systems (e.g., Beebee, 2013 ; McKenna and Pereboom, 2016 ; O’Connor and Franklin, 2018 ). Being a topic of general interest, it is not surprising that experimental psychologists have tried to investigate free will as well.

The most famous study was conducted by Libet et al. (1983) , and this experiment has quickly become a focal point in the extensive discourse on free will because it provides empirical data and a scientific investigation. Libet et al.’s experiment seems to show that the subjective impression when persons consciously decide to act is in fact preceded by objectively measurable but unconscious physical processes. This purportedly proves that our seemingly voluntary actions are actually predetermined by physical processes because the brain has unconsciously reached a decision already before the person becomes aware of it and that our conscious intentions are simply grafted onto it. Therefore, we do not have a free will, and consequently much of our social fabric is based on an illusion. Or so the story goes.

This description, although phrased somewhat pointedly, represents a typical line of thought in the discourse on free will (e.g., the prominent psychologists Gazzaniga, 2011 ; Wegner, 2017 ; see Kihlstrom, 2017 , for further examples).

Libet’s experiment sparked an extensive and highly controversial discussion: For some authors, it is a refutation or at least threat to various concepts of free will, or, conversely, an indicator or even proof for some kind of material determinism. By contrast, other authors deny that the experiment refutes or counts against free will. Furthermore, a third group—whose position we adopt for our further argumentation—denies that Libet’s findings are even relevant for this question at all (for summaries of this complex and extensive discussion and various positions including further references see Nahmias, 2010 ; Radder and Meynen, 2013 ; Schlosser, 2014 ; Fischborn, 2016 ; Lavazza, 2016 ; Schurger, 2017 ). Libet’s own position, although not entirely consistent, opposes most notions of free will ( Roskies, 2011 ; Seifert, 2011 ). Given this background, it is not surprising that there are also numerous further experimental studies on various aspects of this subject area (see the summaries by Saigle et al., 2018 ; Shepard, 2018 ; Brass et al., 2019 ).

However, we argue that this entire discourse is best understood along postmodern lines as hyperreality and that Libet’s experiment itself is a perfect example of a simulacrum. A closer look at the concrete procedure of the experiment shows that Libet actually asked his participants to move their hand or finger “at will” while their brain activity was monitored with an EEG. They were instructed to keep watch in an introspective manner for the moment when they felt the “urge” to move their hand and to record this moment by indicating the clock-position of a pointer. This is obviously a highly artificial situation where the broad and fuzzy concept of “free will” is abstracted and reduced to the movement of the finger, the only degree of freedom being the moment of the movement. The question whether this is an adequate operationalization of free will is of paramount importance, and there are many objections that Libet’s setup fails to measure free will at all (e.g., Mele, 2007 ; Roskies, 2011 ; Kihlstrom, 2017 ; Brass et al., 2019 ).

Before Libet, there was no indication that the decision when to move a finger might be relevant for the concept of free will and the associated discourse. The question whether we have control over our actions referred to completely different levels of granularity. Free will was discussed with respect to questions such as whether we are free to live our lives according to our wishes or whether we are responsible for our actions in social contexts (e.g., Beebee, 2013 ; McKenna and Pereboom, 2016 ; O’Connor and Franklin, 2018 ), and not whether we lift a finger now or two seconds later. Libet’s and others’ jumping from very specific situations to far-reaching conclusions about a very broad and fuzzy theoretical construct illustrates that an extremely wide chasm between two phenomena, namely moving the finger and free will, is bridged in one fell swoop.

In other words, Libet’s experiment is a simulacrum as it duplicates a phenomenon from our day-to-day experience—namely free will—but in doing so the operationalization alters and reduces the theoretical construct. The outcome is a questionable procedure whose relationship to the phenomenon is highly controversial. Furthermore, the fact that, despite its tenuous connection to free will, Libet’s experiment sparked an extensive discussion on this subject reveals the hyperreal nature of the entire discourse because what is being discussed is not the actual question—namely free will—but rather a simulacrum. Everything else—the arguments, counter-arguments, follow-up experiments, and their interpretations—built upon Libet’s experiment are basically commentaries to a simulacrum and not on the real phenomena. Therefore, a hyperreality is created where the discourse revolves around entirely artificial phenomena, but where the arguments in this discussion refer back to and affect the real as suggestions are made to alter the legal system and our ideas of responsibility—which, incidentally, is not a question of empirical science but of law, ethics, and philosophy.

All of the above is not meant to say that this whole discourse is meaningless or even gratuitous—on the contrary, our understanding of the subject matter has greatly increased. Although our knowledge of free will has hardly increased, we have gained much insight into the hermeneutics and methodology—and pitfalls!—of investigations of free will, possible consequences on the individual and societal level, and the workings of scientific discourses. And this is exactly what postmodernism is about.

As shown above, there are a number of postmodern elements in the practice of experimental psychology: The prominent role of language, the gap between the linguistic or mental representation and the phenomenon, the “addition of intellect to the object,” the simulacral character of the experiment itself in its attempt to re-create phenomena, which necessarily transforms the “real” phenomenon due to the requirements of the experiment, and finally the creation of a hyperreality if experiments are taken as the “real” phenomenon and the scientific discourse becomes an exchange of symbolic expressions referring to the simulacra created in experiments, replacing the real. All these aspects did not seep gradually into experimental psychology in the wake of postmodernism but have been present since the very inception of experimental psychology as they are necessarily inherent in its philosophy of science.

Given these inherent postmodern traits in experimental psychology, it is puzzling that there is so much resistance against a perceived “threat” of psychology’s scientificness. Although a detailed investigation of the reasons lies outside the scope of this analysis, we suspect there are two main causes: First, an insufficient knowledge of the history of science and understanding of philosophy of science may result in idealized concepts of a “pure” natural science. Second, lacking familiarity with basic tenets of postmodern approaches may lead to the assumption that postmodernism is just an idle game of arbitrary words. However, “science” and “postmodernism” and their respective epistemological concepts are not opposites ( Gergen, 2001 ; Holtz, 2020 ). This is especially true for psychology, which necessarily contains a social dimension because not only the investigators are humans but also the very subject matter itself.

The (over-)reliance on quantitative-experimental methods in psychology, often paired with a superficial understanding of the philosophy of science behind it, has been criticized, either from the theoretical point of view (e.g., Bergmann and Spence, 1941 ; Hearnshaw, 1941 ; Petrie, 1971 ; Law, 2004 ; Smedslund, 2016 ) or because the experimental approach has failed to produce reliable, valid, and relevant applicable knowledge in educational psychology ( Slavin, 2002 ). It is perhaps symptomatic that a textbook teaching the principles of science for psychologists does not contain even one example from experimental psychology but employs only examples from physics, plus Darwin’s theory of evolution ( Wilton and Harley, 2017 ).

On the other hand, the postmodern perspective on experimental psychology provides insight into some pitfalls, as illustrated by the examples above. On the level of the experiment, the methodological requirements imply the creation of an artificial situation, which opens up a gap between the phenomenon as it is in reality and as it is concretely operationalized in the experimental situation. This is not a problem per se as long as is it clear—and clearly communicated!—that the results of the experiment are only valid in a certain context. The problems begin if the movement of a finger is mistaken for free will. Similarly, being aware that local causalities do not explain complex phenomena such as mental and behavioral processes in their entirety also prevents (over-) generalization, especially if communicated appropriately. These limitations make it clear that the experiment should not be made into an absolute or seen as the only valid way of understanding the psyche and the world.

On the level of psychology as an academic discipline, any investigation must select the appropriate level of granularity and strike a balance between the methodological requirements and the general meaning of the theoretical concept in question to find out something about the “real” world. If the level of granularity is so fine that results cannot be tied back to broader theoretical constructs rather than providing a helpful understanding of our psychological functioning, academic psychology is in danger of becoming a self-referential hyperreality.

The postmodern character of experimental psychology also allows for a different view on the so-called replication crisis in psychology. Authors contending that there is no replication crisis often employ arguments which exhibit postmodern elements, such as the emphasis on specific local conditions in experiments which may explain different outcomes of replication studies ( Stroebe and Strack, 2014 ; Baumeister, 2019 ). In other words, they invoke the simulacral character of experiments. This explanation may be valid or not, but the replication crisis has shown the limits of a predominantly experimental approach in psychology.

Acknowledging the postmodern nature of experimental psychology and incorporating postmodern thinking explicitly into our research may offer a way out of this situation. Our subject matter—the psyche —is extremely complex, ambiguous, and often contradictory. And postmodern thinking has proven capable of successfully explaining such phenomena (e.g., Bertens, 1995 ; Sim, 2011 ; Aylesworth, 2015 ). Thus, paradoxically, by accepting and considering the inherently fuzzy nature of theoretical constructs, they often become much clearer ( Ronzitti, 2011 ). Therefore, thinking more along postmodern lines in psychology would actually sharpen the theoretical and conceptual basis of experimental psychology—all the more as experimental psychology has inevitably been a postmodern endeavor since its very beginning.

Author Contributions

RM, CK, and CL developed the idea for this article. RM drafted the manuscript. CK and CL provided feedback and suggestions. All authors approved the manuscript for submission.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

• Armstrong D. M. (1997). A World of States of Affairs. Cambridge: CUP. [ Google Scholar ]
• Aylesworth G. (2015). “ Postmodernism ,” in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy , ed. Zalta E. N. Available online at: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/postmodernism/ [ Google Scholar ]
• Baddeley A. (2007). Working Memory, Thought, and Action. Oxford: OUP. [ Google Scholar ]
• Barthes R. (1963). “ L’activité structuraliste ,” in Essais Critiques (pp. 215–218). Paris: Éditions du Seuil. [“Structuralist activity.” Translated by R. Howard (1972). In Critical Essays , ed. Barthes R. (Evanston: Northern University Press; ), 213–220]. [ Google Scholar ]
• Baudrillard J. (1981). Simulacres et Simulation . Paris: Galilée. [ Simulacra and Simulation . Translated by S. F. Glaser (1994) . Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.] [ Google Scholar ]
• Baumeister R. F. (2019). “ Self-control, ego depletion, and social psychology’s replication crisis ,” in Surrounding Self-control (Appendix to chap. 2) , ed. Mele A. (New York, NY: OUP; ). 10.31234/osf.io/uf3cn [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Beebee H. (2013). Free Will: An Introduction. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bergmann G., Spence K. W. (1941). Operationism and theory in psychology. Psychol. Rev. 48 1–14. 10.1037/h0054874 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bertens H. (1995). The Idea of the Postmodern. A History. London: Routledge. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brady T. F., Konkle T., Alvarez G. A. (2011). A review of visual memory capacity: beyond individual items and toward structured representations. J. Vis. 11 1–34. 10.1167/11.5.4 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brady T. F., Störmer V. S., Alvarez G. A. (2016). Working memory is not fixed-capacity: more active storage capacity for real-world objects than for simple stimuli. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 113 7459–7464. 10.1073/pnas.1520027113 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brass M., Furstenberg A., Mele A. R. (2019). Why neuroscience does not disprove free will. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 102 251–263. 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.04.024 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Capaldi E. J., Proctor R. W. (2013). “ Postmodernism and the development of the psychology of science ,” in Handbook of the Psychology of Science , eds Feist G. J., Gorman M. E. (New York, NY: Springer; ), 331–352. [ Google Scholar ]
• Carapezza M., D’Agostino M. (2010). Logic and the myth of the perfect language. Logic Philos. Sci. 8 1–29. 10.1093/oso/9780190869816.003.0001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chalmers D. (2005). “ Phenomenal concepts and the explanatory gap ,” in Phenomenal Concepts and Phenomenal Knowledge. New Essays on Consciousness and Physicalism , eds Alter T., Walter S. (Oxford: OUP; ), 167–194. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195171655.003.0009 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cohen H. F. (2015). The Rise of Modern Science Explained: A Comparative History. Cambridge: CUP. [ Google Scholar ]
• Endress A. D., Potter M. C. (2014). Large capacity temporary visual memory. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 143 548–565. 10.1037/a0033934 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fischborn M. (2016). Libet-style experiments, neuroscience, and libertarian free will. Philos. Psychol. 29 494–502. 10.1080/09515089.2016.1141399 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gazzaniga M. S. (2011). Who’s in Charge? Free Will and the Science of the Brain. New York, NY: Ecco. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gemignani M., Peña E. (2007). Postmodern conceptualizations of culture in social constructionism and cultural studies. J. Theor. Philos. Psychol. 27–28 276–300. 10.1037/h0091297 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gergen K. J. (2001). Psychological science in a postmodern context. Am. Psychol. 56 803–813. 10.1037/0003-066X.56.10.803 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gergen K. J. (2002). Psychological science: to conserve or create? Am. Psychol. 57 463–464. 10.1037/0003-066X.57.6-7.463 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gerrig R. J. (2012). Psychology and Life , 20th Edn Boston: Pearson. [ Google Scholar ]
• Goldstein E. B. (2015). Cognitive Psychology: Connecting Mind, Research and Everyday Experience. Stamford: Cengage Learning. [ Google Scholar ]
• Goodwin C. J. (2015). A History of Modern Psychology , 5th Edn Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hackert B., Weger U. (2018). Introspection and the Würzburg school: implications for experimental psychology today. Eur. Psychol. 23 217–232. 10.1027/1016-9040/a000329 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Haig B. D. (2014). Investigating the Psychological World: Scientific Method in the Behavioral Sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hansen J. T. (2015). The relevance of postmodernism to counselors and counseling practice. J. Ment. Health Counsel. 37 355–363. 10.17744/MEHC.37.4.06 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hare-Mustin R. T., Marecek J. (1988). The meaning of difference: gender theory, postmodernism, and psychology. Am. Psychol. 43 455–464. 10.1037//0003-066X.43.6.455 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Harris R. (2005). The Semantics of Science. London: Continuum. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hearnshaw L. S. (1941). Psychology and operationism. Aust. J. Psychol. Philos. 19 44–57. 10.1080/00048404108541506 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Heidegger M. (1953). Sein und Zeit (7. Aufl.). Tübingen: Niemeyer. [ Being and Time . Translated by J. Stambaugh, revised by D. J. Schmidt (2010) . Albany: SUNY Press.] [ Google Scholar ]
• Held B. S. (2007). Psychology’s Interpretive Turn: The Search for Truth and Agency in Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology. Washington, DC: APA. [ Google Scholar ]
• Henry J. (1997). The Scientific Revolution and the Origins of Modern Science. Basingstoke: Macmillan. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hodge B. (1999). The Sokal ‘Hoax’: some implications for science and postmodernism. Continuum J. Media Cult. Stud. 13 255–269. 10.1080/10304319909365797 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hofmann S. G. (2002). More science, not less. Am. Psychol. 57 : 462 10.1037//0003-066X.57.6-7.462a [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Holt R. R. (2005). “ The menace of postmodernism to a psychoanalytic psychology ,” in Relatedness, Self-definition and Mental Representation: Essays in Honor of Sidney J. Blatt , eds Auerbach J. S., Levy K. N., Schaffer C. E. (London: Routledge; ), 288–302. 10.4324/9780203337318_chapter_18 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Holtz P. (2020). Does postmodernism really entail a disregard for the truth? Similarities and differences in postmodern and critical rationalist conceptualizations of truth, progress, and empirical research methods. Front. Psychol. 11 : 545959 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.545959 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Holzman L. (2006). Activating postmodernism. Theory Psychol. 16 109–123. 10.1177/0959354306060110 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Holzman L., Morss J. (eds). (2000). Postmodern Psychologies, Societal Practice, and Political Life. New York, NY: Routledge. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hutmacher F. (2019). Why is there so much more research on vision than on any other sensory modality? Front. Psychol. 10 : 2246 . 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02246 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jager B. (1991). Psychology in a postmodern era. J. Phenomenol. Psychol. 22 60–71. 10.1163/156916291X00046 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jiménez J. P. (2015). Psychoanalysis in postmodern times: some questions and challenges. Psychoanal. Inquiry 35 609–624. 10.1080/07351690.2015.1055221 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kihlstrom J. F. (2017). Time to lay the Libet experiment to rest: commentary on Papanicolaou (2017). Psycho. Conscious. Theory Res. Pract. 4 324–329. 10.1037/cns0000124 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kleinert A. (2009). Der messende Luchs. NTM. Z. Gesch. Wiss. Tech. Med. 17 199–206. 10.1007/s00048-009-0335-4 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Krippner S. (2001). “ Research methodology in humanistic psychology in the light of postmodernity ,” in The Handbook of Humanistic Psychology: Leading Edges in Theory, Research, and Practice , eds Schneider K. J., Bugental J. F., Pierson J. F. (Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications; ), 290–304. 10.4135/9781412976268.n22 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kruger D. J. (2002). The deconstruction of constructivism. Am. Psychol. 57 456–457. 10.1037/0003-066X.57.6-7.456 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kvale S. (ed.) (1992). Psychology and Postmodernism. London: SAGE. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lavazza A. (2016). Free will and neuroscience: from explaining freedom away to new ways of operationalizing and measuring it. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 10 : 262 . 10.3389/fnhum.2016.00262 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Law J. (2004). After Method: Mess in Social Science Research. London: Routledge. [ Google Scholar ]
• Leahey T. H. (2017). A History of Psychology: From Antiquity to Modernity , 8th Edn New York, NY: Routledge. [ Google Scholar ]
• Leffert M. (2007). A contemporary integration of modern and postmodern trends in psychoanalysis. J. Am. Psychoanal. Assoc. 55 177–197. 10.1177/00030651070550011001 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Libet B., Gleason C. A., Wright E. W., Pearl D. K. (1983). Time of conscious intention to act in relation to onset of cerebral activity (readiness-potential). The unconscious initiation of a freely voluntary act. Brain 106 623–642. 10.1093/brain/106.3.623 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lilienfeld S. O. (2010). Can psychology become a science? Pers. Individ. Differ. 49 281–288. 10.1016/j.paid.2010.01.024 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Locke E. A. (2002). The dead end of postmodernism. Am. Psychol. 57 : 458 10.1037/0003-066X.57.6-7.458a [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Luck S. J., Vogel E. K. (1997). The capacity of visual working memory for features and conjunctions. Nature 390 279–281. 10.1038/36846 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Luck S. J., Vogel E. K. (2013). Visual working memory capacity: from psychophysics and neurobiology to individual differences. Trends Cogn. Sci. 17 391–400. 10.1016/j.tics.2013.06.006 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ma W. J., Husain M., Bays P. M. (2014). Changing concepts of working memory. Nature Neurosci. 17 347–356. 10.1038/nn.3655 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mandler G. (2007). A History of Modern Experimental Psychology: From James and Wundt to Cognitive Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Martin J. (2003). Positivism, quantification and the phenomena of psychology. Theory Psychol. 13 33–38. 10.1177/0959354303013001760 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Martin J., Sugarman J. (2009). Middle-ground theorizing, realism, and objectivity in psychology: a commentary on Held (2007). Theory Psychol. 19 115–122. 10.1177/0959354308101422 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Matlin M. W. (2012). Cognition , 8th Edn Hoboken: Wiley. [ Google Scholar ]
• McKenna M., Pereboom D. (2016). Free Will: A Contemporary Introduction. New York, NY: Routledge. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mele A. R. (2007). “ Decisions, intentions, urges, and free will: why libet has not shown what he says he has ,” in Causation and Explanation , eds Campbell J. K., O’Rourke M., Silverstein H. S. (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; ), 241–263. [ Google Scholar ]
• Michell J. (2003). The quantitative imperative: positivism, naïve realism and the place of qualitative methods in psychology. Theory Psychol. 13 5–31. 10.1177/0959354303013001758 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nahmias E. (2010). “ Scientific challenges to free will ,” in A Companion to the Philosophy of Action , eds Sandis C., O’Connor T. (Malden: Wiley-Blackwell; ), 345–310. 10.1002/9781444323528.ch44 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nola R., Sankey H. (2014). Theories of Scientific Method. An Introduction. Stocksfield: Acumen. [ Google Scholar ]
• O’Connor T., Franklin C. (2018). “ Free will ,” in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy , ed. Zalta E. N. Available online at: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/ [ Google Scholar ]
• Olby R. C., Cantor G. N., Christie J. R. R., Hodge M. J. S. (eds). (1991). Companion to the History of Modern Science. London: Routledge. [ Google Scholar ]
• Osterlind S. J. (2019). The Error of Truth: How History and Mathematics Came Together to Form Our Character and Shape Our Worldview. Oxford: OUP. [ Google Scholar ]
• Parkin A. J. (2013). Essential Cognitive Psychology (classic edition) . London: Psychology Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Paul L. A., Hall N. (2013). Causation: A User’s Guide. Oxford: OUP. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pearl J. (2009). Causality. Models, Reasoning, and Inference , 2nd Edn Cambridge: CUP. [ Google Scholar ]
• Petrie H. G. (1971). A dogma of operationalism in the social sciences. Philos. Soc. Sci. 1 145–160. 10.1177/004839317100100109 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pinker S. (2018). Enlightenment Now. The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress. New York, NY: Viking. [ Google Scholar ]
• Planck M. (1949). The meaning and limits of exact science. Science 110 319–327. 10.1126/science.110.2857.319 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Radder H., Meynen G. (2013). Does the brain “initiate” freely willed processes? A philosophy of science critique of Libet-type experiments and their interpretation. Theory Psychol. 23 3–21. 10.1177/0959354312460926 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ramey H. L., Grubb S. (2009). Modernism, postmodernism and (evidence-based) practice. Contemp. Fam. Ther. 31 75–86. 10.1007/s10591-009-9086-6 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Robinson M. M., Benjamin A. S., Irwin D. E. (2020). Is there a K in capacity? Assessing the structure of visual short-term memory. Cogn. Psychol. 121 101305 . 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2020.101305 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ronzitti G. (ed.) (2011). Vagueness: A Guide. Dordrecht: Springer. [ Google Scholar ]
• Roskies A. L. (2011). “ Why Libet’s studies don’t pose a threat to free will ,” in Conscious Will and Responsibility , eds Sinnott-Armstrong W., Nadel L. (Oxford: OUP; ), 11–22. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195381641.003.0003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Saigle V., Dubljević V., Racine E. (2018). The impact of a landmark neuroscience study on free will: a qualitative analysis of articles using Libet and colleagues’ methods. AJOB Neurosci. 9 29–41. 10.1080/21507740.2018.1425756 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schlosser M. E. (2014). The neuroscientific study of free will: a diagnosis of the controversy. Synthese 191 245–262. 10.1007/s11229-013-0312-2 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schurger A. (2017). “ The neuropsychology of conscious volition ,” in The Blackwell Companion to Consciousness , eds Schneider S., Velmans M. (Malden: Wiley Blackwell; ), 695–710. 10.1002/9781119132363.ch49 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schurgin M. W. (2018). Visual memory, the long and the short of it: a review of visual working memory and long-term memory. Attention Percept. Psychophys. 80 1035–1056. 10.3758/s13414-018-1522-y [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schurgin M. W., Brady T. F. (2019). When “capacity” changes with set size: ensemble representations support the detection of across-category changes in visual working memory. J. Vis. 19 1–13. 10.1167/19.5.3 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schurgin M. W., Cunningham C. A., Egeth H. E., Brady T. F. (2018). Visual long-term memory can replace active maintenance in visual working memory. bioRxiv [Preprint]. 10.1101/381848 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Segerstråle U.C.O. (ed.) (2000). Beyond the Science Wars: The Missing Discourse about Science and Society. Albany: SUNY Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Seifert J. (2011). In defense of free will: a critique of Benjamin Libet. Rev. Metaphys. 65 377–407. [ Google Scholar ]
• Shearer A. (2020). The Story of Yoga: From Ancient India to the Modern West. London: Hurst & Company. [ Google Scholar ]
• Shepard J. (2018). How libet-style experiments may (or may not) challenge lay theories of free will. AJOB Neurosci. 9 45–47. 10.1080/21507740.2018.1425766 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sim S. (2011). The Routledge Companion to Postmodernism , 3rd Edn London: Routledge. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sinacore A. L., Enns C. Z. (2005). “ Diversity feminisms: postmodern, women-of-color, antiracist, lesbian, third-wave, and global perspectives ,” in Teaching and Social Justice: Integrating Multicultural and Feminist Theories in the Classroom , eds Enns C. Z., Sinacore A. L. (Washington, DC: APA; ), 41–68. 10.1037/10929-003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Slavin R. E. (2002). Evidence-based education policies: transforming educational practice and research. Educ. Res. 31 15–21. 10.3102/0013189X031007015 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Smedslund J. (2016). Why psychology cannot be an empirical science. Integrative Psychol. Behav. Sci. 50 185–195. 10.1007/s12124-015-9339-x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sokal A. D. (1996). A physicist experiments with cultural studies. Lingua Franca 6 62–64. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sternberg R. J., Sternberg K. (2011). Cognitive Psychology , 6th Edn Wadsworth: Cengage Learning. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stroebe W., Strack F. (2014). The alleged crisis and the illusion of exact replication. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 9 59–71. 10.1177/1745691613514450 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Taleb N. N. (2007). The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable. New York, NY: Random House. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tarescavage A. M. (2020). Science Wars II: the insidious influence of postmodern ideology on clinical psychology (commentary on “Implications of ideological bias in social psychology on clinical practice”). Clin. Psychol. Sci. Pract. 27 : e12319 10.1111/cpsp.12319 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Teo T. (2018). Outline of Theoretical Psychology. London: Palgrave Macmillan. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wax M. L. (1995). Method as madness science, hermeneutics, and art in psychoanalysis. J. Am. Acad. Psychoanal. 23 525–543. 10.1521/jaap.1.1995.23.4.525 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wegner D. M. (2017). The Illusion of Conscious Will , 2nd Edn Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wilton R., Harley T. (2017). Science and Psychology. London: Routledge. [ Google Scholar ]

• Games & Quizzes
• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center

experimental psychology

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

• American Psychological Association - Understanding Experimental Psychology

experimental psychology , a method of studying psychological phenomena and processes. The experimental method in psychology attempts to account for the activities of animals (including humans) and the functional organization of mental processes by manipulating variables that may give rise to behaviour; it is primarily concerned with discovering laws that describe manipulable relationships. The term generally connotes all areas of psychology that use the experimental method.

These areas include the study of sensation and perception , learning and memory , motivation , and biological psychology . There are experimental branches in many other areas, however, including child psychology , clinical psychology , educational psychology , and social psychology . Usually the experimental psychologist deals with normal, intact organisms; in biological psychology, however, studies are often conducted with organisms modified by surgery, radiation, drug treatment, or long-standing deprivations of various kinds or with organisms that naturally present organic abnormalities or emotional disorders. See also psychophysics .

Social Psychology Experiments: 10 Of The Most Famous Studies

Ten of the most influential social psychology experiments explain why we sometimes do dumb or irrational things. 

Ten of the most influential social psychology experiments explain why we sometimes do dumb or irrational things.

“I have been primarily interested in how and why ordinary people do unusual things, things that seem alien to their natures. Why do good people sometimes act evil? Why do smart people sometimes do dumb or irrational things?” –Philip Zimbardo

Like famous social psychologist Professor Philip Zimbardo (author of The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil ), I’m also obsessed with why we do dumb or irrational things.

The answer quite often is because of other people — something social psychologists have comprehensively shown.

Each of the 10 brilliant social psychology experiments below tells a unique, insightful story relevant to all our lives, every day.

Click the link in each social psychology experiment to get the full description and explanation of each phenomenon.

1. Social Psychology Experiments: The Halo Effect

The halo effect is a finding from a famous social psychology experiment.

It is the idea that global evaluations about a person (e.g. she is likeable) bleed over into judgements about their specific traits (e.g. she is intelligent).

It is sometimes called the “what is beautiful is good” principle, or the “physical attractiveness stereotype”.

It is called the halo effect because a halo was often used in religious art to show that a person is good.

2. Cognitive Dissonance

Cognitive dissonance is the mental discomfort people feel when trying to hold two conflicting beliefs in their mind.

People resolve this discomfort by changing their thoughts to align with one of conflicting beliefs and rejecting the other.

The study provides a central insight into the stories we tell ourselves about why we think and behave the way we do.

3. Robbers Cave Experiment: How Group Conflicts Develop

The Robbers Cave experiment was a famous social psychology experiment on how prejudice and conflict emerged between two group of boys.

It shows how groups naturally develop their own cultures, status structures and boundaries — and then come into conflict with each other.

For example, each country has its own culture, its government, legal system and it draws boundaries to differentiate itself from neighbouring countries.

One of the reasons the became so famous is that it appeared to show how groups could be reconciled, how peace could flourish.

The key was the focus on superordinate goals, those stretching beyond the boundaries of the group itself.

4. Social Psychology Experiments: The Stanford Prison Experiment

The Stanford prison experiment was run to find out how people would react to being made a prisoner or prison guard.

The psychologist Philip Zimbardo, who led the Stanford prison experiment, thought ordinary, healthy people would come to behave cruelly, like prison guards, if they were put in that situation, even if it was against their personality.

It has since become a classic social psychology experiment, studied by generations of students and recently coming under a lot of criticism.

5. The Milgram Social Psychology Experiment

The Milgram experiment , led by the well-known psychologist Stanley Milgram in the 1960s, aimed to test people’s obedience to authority.

The results of Milgram’s social psychology experiment, sometimes known as the Milgram obedience study, continue to be both thought-provoking and controversial.

The Milgram experiment discovered people are much more obedient than you might imagine.

Fully 63 percent of the participants continued administering what appeared like electric shocks to another person while they screamed in agony, begged to stop and eventually fell silent — just because they were told to.

6. The False Consensus Effect

The false consensus effect is a famous social psychological finding that people tend to assume that others agree with them.

It could apply to opinions, values, beliefs or behaviours, but people assume others think and act in the same way as they do.

It is hard for many people to believe the false consensus effect exists because they quite naturally believe they are good ‘intuitive psychologists’, thinking it is relatively easy to predict other people’s attitudes and behaviours.

In reality, people show a number of predictable biases, such as the false consensus effect, when estimating other people’s behaviour and its causes.

7. Social Psychology Experiments: Social Identity Theory

Social identity theory helps to explain why people’s behaviour in groups is fascinating and sometimes disturbing.

People gain part of their self from the groups they belong to and that is at the heart of social identity theory.

The famous theory explains why as soon as humans are bunched together in groups we start to do odd things: copy other members of our group, favour members of own group over others, look for a leader to worship and fight other groups.

8. Negotiation: 2 Psychological Strategies That Matter Most

Negotiation is one of those activities we often engage in without quite realising it.

Negotiation doesn’t just happen in the boardroom, or when we ask our boss for a raise or down at the market, it happens every time we want to reach an agreement with someone.

In a classic, award-winning series of social psychology experiments, Morgan Deutsch and Robert Krauss investigated two central factors in negotiation: how we communicate with each other and how we use threats.

9. Bystander Effect And The Diffusion Of Responsibility

The bystander effect in social psychology is the surprising finding that the mere presence of other people inhibits our own helping behaviours in an emergency.

The bystander effect social psychology experiments are mentioned in every psychology textbook and often dubbed ‘seminal’.

This famous social psychology experiment on the bystander effect was inspired by the highly publicised murder of Kitty Genovese in 1964.

It found that in some circumstances, the presence of others inhibits people’s helping behaviours — partly because of a phenomenon called diffusion of responsibility.

10. Asch Conformity Experiment: The Power Of Social Pressure

The Asch conformity experiments — some of the most famous every done — were a series of social psychology experiments carried out by noted psychologist Solomon Asch.

The Asch conformity experiment reveals how strongly a person’s opinions are affected by people around them.

In fact, the Asch conformity experiment shows that many of us will deny our own senses just to conform with others.

Social Psychology

What is social psychology.

Social psychology is a dynamic and empirical field dedicated to unraveling the intricate ways in which people’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are shaped by the presence, whether real, imagined, or implied, of others (Allport, 1998). This definition underscores the scientific nature of the discipline, emphasizing the importance of empirical investigation. The terms “thoughts, feelings, and behaviors” encompass a comprehensive range of psychological variables that can be measured and analyzed within individuals. Notably, the concept that social influence can operate even when no tangible individuals are present highlights the pervasive impact of the social world, extending to scenarios such as media consumption and adherence to internalized cultural norms.

Social psychology operates as an empirical science, aiming to address a multitude of questions about human behavior by systematically testing hypotheses. This investigative approach encompasses both controlled laboratory experiments and real-world field studies. It places a central focus on the individual, endeavoring to elucidate how the thoughts, emotions, and actions of individuals are shaped and molded by their interactions with others.

Despite being a relatively recent addition to the realm of psychological inquiry, social psychology has made substantial contributions not only within the academic domains of psychology, sociology, and the broader social sciences but has also significantly influenced public perceptions and expectations regarding human social behavior. Through the examination of how individuals respond to extreme social pressures or the absence thereof, social psychology has yielded profound insights into the essence of human nature. It recognizes that humans are inherently social creatures, and as such, social interaction is fundamental to the well-being and development of each person.

By delving into the myriad factors that influence social life and investigating the reciprocal impact of social interactions on individual psychological development and mental health, social psychology is gradually shedding light on how humanity as a whole can coexist harmoniously. It strives to uncover the mechanisms that drive cooperation, influence, and conflict within societies, paving the way for a deeper understanding of human nature and the dynamics that shape our collective existence. In essence, social psychology is a multidimensional field that not only enhances our comprehension of human behavior but also offers valuable insights into how we can thrive together in a complex and interconnected world.

Read more about Social Psychology Theories .

Links Between Social Psychology and Sociology

The intersection between social psychology and sociology represents a dynamic realm of inquiry that delves into the intricate interplay between individual and group dynamics, shedding light on various facets of human behavior within the context of social structures and processes.

Social psychology, as a subfield of psychology, is primarily concerned with investigating the cognitive, affective, and behavioral processes of individuals as they are influenced by factors such as group membership, social interactions, and social context. It encompasses an extensive range of topics, including the development of attitudes, stereotypes, and discrimination, the complexities of group dynamics, conformity and social influence, self-concept and identity, persuasion, interpersonal perception and attraction, cognitive dissonance, and the intricate dynamics of human relationships.

Notably, a significant contingent of social psychologists has backgrounds in sociology, and their research often leans toward the study of group behavior. This emphasis extends to the examination of interactions and social exchanges at the micro-level, as well as delving into phenomena like group dynamics and crowd psychology at the macro-level. Sociologists, as professionals within a distinct discipline, approach the study of the individual in the broader context of social structures and processes. They explore concepts such as social roles, racial and class dynamics, and socialization, often employing a combination of qualitative and quantitative research methodologies.

Within sociology, researchers in this domain focus on a diverse array of demographic, social, and cultural phenomena. Key research areas include social inequality, group dynamics, social change, socialization, social identity, and symbolic interactionism. These sociologists are keenly interested in unraveling the complexities of how individuals navigate societal structures and the implications of these structures on human behavior.

The relationship between social psychology and sociology is symbiotic, with each field offering unique insights into the multifaceted realm of social behavior. While many social psychologists are trained within the discipline of psychology, their research often emphasizes the immediate social context and the interplay between individual and situational variables. Empirical research, often conducted in laboratory settings, is a hallmark of their work. These researchers explore topics such as attitudes, social cognition, cognitive dissonance, social influence, and interpersonal behavior, contributing to a rich body of knowledge within the realm of social psychology. Influential journals such as The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology and The Journal of Experimental Social Psychology serve as prominent platforms for the dissemination of research in this domain.

In summary, the connection between social psychology and sociology offers a holistic understanding of human behavior, bridging the individual-focused lens of psychology with the broader societal perspectives of sociology. This interdisciplinary synergy enriches our comprehension of the complex dynamics that underlie human interactions, attitudes, and social structures.

Read more about Sociological Social Psychology .

History of Social Psychology

The discipline of social psychology, which emerged in the United States at the turn of the twentieth century, has evolved significantly over the years, shaping our understanding of how social factors influence human behavior.

The origins of social psychology can be traced back to Norman Triplett’s groundbreaking experiment in 1898, which explored the phenomenon of social facilitation. However, it was during the 1930s that the field began to take shape, with the influx of Gestalt psychologists, including Kurt Lewin, who sought refuge in the United States from Nazi Germany. These scholars played a pivotal role in establishing social psychology as a distinct discipline, separate from the dominant behavioral and psychoanalytic schools of thought. Their enduring interest in perception and cognition left an indelible mark on the field. During this era, attitudes and various aspects of small group dynamics took center stage as the most commonly studied topics.

World War II marked a significant turning point for social psychology, as researchers were enlisted to study persuasion and propaganda for the U.S. military. Post-war, the discipline expanded its focus to address a range of social issues, including gender dynamics and racial prejudice. The 1960s ushered in a period of burgeoning interest in novel subjects like cognitive dissonance, bystander intervention, and aggression. By the 1970s, however, social psychology in the United States encountered a series of challenges. Debates over the ethics of laboratory experimentation, the predictability of attitudes in shaping behavior, and the extent to which cultural context influenced scientific inquiry (as exemplified by the radical situationist approach) caused significant rifts and introspection within the field.

In the immediate aftermath of World War II, psychologists and sociologists frequently collaborated, fostering interdisciplinary research (Sewell, 1989). However, as the years progressed, these two disciplines increasingly specialized and operated in relative isolation. Sociologists have primarily focused on macro-level variables such as social structure, while psychologists have maintained a more micro-level focus. Nonetheless, sociological approaches continue to complement psychological research in the field of social psychology.

Social psychology reached a state of maturity, both in terms of theory and research methods, during the 1980s and 1990s. Ethical standards have been implemented to govern research practices, and the field has become more pluralistic, embracing multicultural perspectives. Contemporary social psychologists investigate a wide array of phenomena, with attribution, social cognition, and self-concept emerging as prominent areas of growth. Applied interests have also remained a cornerstone of the discipline, with contributions in areas such as health psychology, environmental psychology, and the psychology of the legal system.

In summary, social psychology is a discipline that explores how social conditions and influences shape human behavior. While scholars in this field may come from backgrounds in psychology or sociology, they share a common interest in both the individual and the group as units of analysis. Despite some differences in goals, approaches, and methods between these two disciplines, they continue to enrich our understanding of the intricate ways in which social factors impact human behavior.

Read more about History of Social Psychology .

Social Psychology Experiments

At its core, experimentation serves as a fundamental method for discerning the existence or absence of causal relationships between variables by meticulously manipulating one variable, referred to as the independent variable, while scrutinizing its impact on another variable known as the dependent variable.

Critiques of experimentation have surfaced over time, with some scholars raising concerns about its applicability to real-world scenarios. They argue that experiments may not always replicate the complexities of everyday life. Nevertheless, it’s crucial to emphasize that experimentation stands as the singular research approach capable of unequivocally establishing a causal connection between two or more variables.

While acknowledging these criticisms, it’s essential to recognize the enduring value and unique strengths of experimentation within the realm of scientific inquiry. Experimentation provides a controlled and systematic framework for probing causality, allowing researchers to isolate specific factors and precisely manipulate them to ascertain their influence on other variables. This methodological rigor is particularly valuable in elucidating cause-and-effect relationships, offering insights that can inform a wide array of disciplines, from psychology to medicine, education, and beyond.

Moreover, experimentation contributes to the development of theories and models that help us understand complex phenomena and predict outcomes. By carefully designing experiments that isolate variables of interest and systematically altering them, researchers can uncover the underlying mechanisms driving observed effects.

In essence, while it is essential to consider the limitations of experimentation, such as its potential lack of ecological validity, it remains an indispensable tool in scientific inquiry. When applied judiciously and in conjunction with other research methods, experimentation empowers researchers to unravel causal connections, advance knowledge, and provide evidence-based insights that inform our understanding of the intricate interplay between variables in both controlled and real-world settings.

Read more about Social Psychology Experiments .

Social Psychology Research Methods

Social psychologists employ various research methods to elucidate the intricate dynamics of human behavior, emphasizing the interplay between mental states and immediate social contexts. Kurt Lewin’s heuristic, encapsulated in the formula B = f(P,E), posits that behavior is a function of both the individual (person) and the environment. These research methods serve as indispensable tools for unraveling the complexities of human behavior and understanding the factors that drive it.

Experimental Methods : Experimental approaches entail the deliberate manipulation of one or more independent variables within a controlled environment to examine their impact on a dependent variable. For instance, researchers might allow two groups of children to engage with either violent or nonviolent video games, subsequently observing their levels of aggression during a free-play period. A hallmark of valid experiments is their high level of control and the use of random assignment, which minimizes the influence of confounding or extraneous variables. However, controlled experiments, often conducted with small samples, may have limitations in external validity, meaning the extent to which their findings can be generalized to the broader population.

Co-relational Methods : Co-relational approaches explore statistical associations between naturally occurring variables. For example, one might correlate the amount of violent television children watch at home with the number of violent incidents these children are involved in at school. It’s essential to note that correlational studies do not establish causation; they merely identify relationships between variables. In the example given, it’s plausible that aggressive children gravitate toward more violent TV programs, rather than the TV causing aggression.

Observational Methods : Observational techniques provide descriptive insights into human behavior and encompass various approaches such as naturalistic observation, contrived observation, participant observation, and archival analysis. While less common in social psychology, these methods are sometimes employed during initial investigations of a phenomenon. For instance, researchers might discreetly observe children on a playground, recording the number and types of aggressive actions displayed.

Survey Research : Surveys are valuable when seeking results high in external validity. They employ various forms of random sampling to obtain a representative sample of respondents from a broader population. Survey research is typically descriptive or correlational, lacking experimental control over variables. Nevertheless, modern statistical methods, such as structural equation modeling, are increasingly employed to examine potential causal relationships within survey data.

Data Analysis and Evaluation : Social psychologists employ statistical analyses and probability testing to evaluate their hypotheses and results rigorously. A significant finding is typically defined as one with less than a 5% likelihood of occurring by chance. Replication studies are crucial to validate results and ascertain that they are not contingent on specific sample characteristics or chance occurrences.

Social psychology encompasses a diverse array of research methods, each serving a distinct purpose in the quest to understand human behavior within social contexts. These methods, when employed judiciously and in concert with one another, contribute to the accumulation of knowledge, the testing of hypotheses, and the discovery of causal relationships, enriching our comprehension of the intricate interplay between individual and environmental factors that shape our social world.

Read more about Social Psychology Research Methods .

Social Psychology Ethics

The pursuit of social psychology’s goal—to comprehend cognition and behavior within the natural context of social interactions—presents a unique challenge. The mere act of observing individuals can exert a profound influence, potentially altering their behavior. To navigate this challenge, many social psychology experiments employ the strategy of deception, which involves concealing or distorting specific aspects of the study. Deception tactics may encompass false cover stories, the introduction of fictitious participants (commonly referred to as confederates or stooges), provision of deceptive feedback to participants, and more.

However, the practice of deception in research has sparked ethical debates within the field. Some psychologists argue that any form of deception, regardless of its purpose, is ethically questionable. They advocate for alternative research strategies, such as role-playing, as a more transparent and ethically sound approach. Unfortunately, studies have indicated that role-playing may not yield identical results to those obtained through deception, raising concerns about the validity of such alternatives.

In addition to deception, certain experiments have placed participants in potentially uncomfortable or embarrassing situations. For example, Stanley Milgram’s Obedience to Authority experiments and Philip Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison experiment have faced ethical scrutiny due to the psychological distress and emotional discomfort experienced by participants.

To safeguard the rights and well-being of research participants while striving to uncover meaningful insights into human behavior, virtually all social psychology research must undergo rigorous ethical scrutiny. Most universities and colleges employ ethics committees or institutional review boards to oversee this process. These committees assess proposed research to ensure it does not harm participants and that any potential benefits outweigh any associated risks or discomforts.

Furthermore, the informed consent procedure is commonly employed to ensure that volunteers are fully aware of the study’s procedures and that they retain the right to withdraw their participation at any point. Following the experiment, a debriefing session is typically conducted to disclose any instances of deception and to ensure participants are not adversely affected by the research procedures.

In contemporary social psychology, the ethical standards and safeguards in place aim to ensure that research poses no greater risk of harm than what individuals might encounter in routine psychological assessments or everyday activities. The field continues to evolve its ethical guidelines, emphasizing the responsible and ethical conduct of research to advance our understanding of the complexities of human social behavior while prioritizing the welfare and dignity of research participants.

Social Psychology References:

• Adler, L. L., & Gielen, U. P. (Eds.). (2001). Cross-cultural topics in psychology (2nd ed.). Westport: Praeger.
• Allport, G. W. (1998). The historical background of social psychology. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Ambady, N., & Rosenthal, R. (1992). Thin slices of expressive behavior as predictors of interpersonal consequences: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 256–274.
• Asch, S. E. (1955). Opinions and social pressure. Scientific American, 193, 31–35.
• Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. (1961). Transmission of aggression through imitation of aggressive models. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63, 575–582.
• Batson, C. D. (1998). Altruism and pro-social behavior. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Bem, D. (1970). Beliefs, attitudes, and human affairs. Belmont: Brooks/Cole.
• Borkenau, P., & Liebler, A. (1992). Trait inferences: Sources of validity at zero acquaintance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 645–647.
• Cialdini, R. B. (2000). Influence: Science and practice. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
• Correll, J., Park, B., Judd, C. M., &Wittenbrink, B. (2002). The police officer’s dilemma: Using ethnicity to disambiguate potentially threatening individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1314–1329.
• Cote, J. E., & Levine, C. G. (2002). Identity formation, agency, and culture. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Cronbach, L. J. (1955). Processes affecting scores on “understanding of others” and “assumed similarity”. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 177–193.
• Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
• Festinger, L., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1959). Cognitive consequences of forced compliance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58, 203–211.
• Funder, D. C. (1995). On the accuracy of personality judgment: A realistic approach. Psychological Review, 102, 652–670.
• Gergen, K. J. (1973). Social psychology as history. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 26, 309–320.
• Gielen, U. P., & Adler, L. L. (Eds.). (1992). Psychology in international perspective: 50 years of the International Council of Psychologists. Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
• Gladwell, M. (2005). Blink: The power of thinking without thinking. Boston: Little, Brown.
• Guzewicz, T. D., & Takooshian, H. (1992). Development of a shortform scale of public attitudes toward homelessness. Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless, 1(1), 67–79.
• Haney, C., Banks, W. C., & Zimbardo, P. G. (1973). Interpersonal dynamics in a simulated prison. International Journal of Criminology and Penology, 1, 69–97.
• Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
• Kelley, C. P., & Vichinstein, S. D. S. (2007). An introduction to DIRP theory: Disentangling interspecies reproduction patterns. Presented at the Annual Conference of the ISAA.
• Kenny, D. A. (1994). Interpersonal perception: A social relations analysis. New York: Guilford.
• Latane, B. (1981). The psychology of social impact. The American Psychologist, 36, 343–356.
• Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers. New York: Harper & Row.
• Mesoudi, A. (2007). Using the methods of experimental social psychology to study cultural evolution. Journal of Social, Evolutionary and Cultural Psychology, 1(2), 35–58.
• Milgram, S. ([1975] 2004). Obedience to authority. New York: Harper & Bros.
• Perloff, R. M. (2007). The dynamics of persuasion.Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Rieber, R.W., Takooshian, H., & Iglesias, H. (2002). The case of Sybil in the teaching of psychology. Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless, 11(4), 355–360.
• Schaller, M., Simpson, J. A., & Kenrick, D. T. (2006). Evolution and social psychology (frontiers of social psychology). New York: Psychology Press.
• Sewell, W. H. (1989). Some reflections on the golden age of interdisciplinary social psychology. Annual Review of Sociology, 15, 1–17.
• Sherif, M. (1954). Experiments in group conflict. Scientific American, 195, 54–58.
• Sternberg, R. J. (1986). A triangular theory of love. Psychological Review, 93, 119–135.
• Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
• Takooshian, H. (2000). How Stanley Milgram taught about obedience and social influence. In T. Blass (Ed.), Obedience to authority (pp. 9–24). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Takooshian, H. (2005a). Reviewing 100 years of cross-national work on intelligence. PsycCRITIQUES, 50(12).
• Takooshian, H. (Ed.). (2005b). Social psychology of city life [Special issue]. Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless, 14(1, 2), 1–77.
• Takooshian, H., & Verdi, W. M. (1995). Assessment of attitudes toward terrorism. In L. L. Adler & F. L. Denmark (Eds.), Violence and the prevention of violence. Westport: Praeger.
• Takooshian, H., Mrinal, N., & Mrinal, U. (2001). Research methods for studies in the field. In L. L. Adler & U. P. Gielen (Eds.), Crosscultural topics in psychology (2nd ed.). Westport: Praeger.
• Triplett, N. (1898). The dynamogenic factors in pacemaking and competition. The American Journal of Psychology, 9, 507–533.
• Vazier, S., & Gosling, S. D. (2004). e-Perceptions: Personality impressions based on personal websites. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 123–132.
• Watson, D. (1989). Strangers’ ratings of the five robust personality factors: Evidence of a surprising convergence with self-report. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 120–128.

• Corpus ID: 142030265

Social psychology : an experimental approach

• Published 1966

144 Citations

Zajonc, cockroaches, and chickens, c. 1965—1975: a characterization and contextualization.

• Highly Influenced

Shared Information, Cognitive Load, and Group Memory

Toxic triads: supervisor characteristics, subordinate self-esteem, and supervisor stressors in relation to perceptions of abusive supervision, learning by teaching: key challenges and design implications, “hyperfeedback” as a tool to assess and induce interpersonal synchrony: the role of applied social neurosciences for research, training, and clinical practice, different approaches to desing of the group traning in adult learning, the origins of the minimal group paradigm., learning-by-teaching. evidence and implications as a pedagogical mechanism, long-range forecasting from crystal ball to computer, efecto del tipo de contingencia en el establecimiento y cualidad de intercambios verbales: su papel en la elección de alternativas compartidas, related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

Search with any image

Unsupported image file format.

Image file size is too large..

Drag an image here

• Health, Fitness & Dieting
• Psychology & Counseling

Sorry, there was a problem.

Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required .

Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.

Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.

Image Unavailable

• To view this video download Flash Player

Follow the author

Social Psychology: Experimental and Critical Approaches 1st Edition

By studying experimental and critical approaches presented together rather than separately, students gain a richer and deeper understanding of what social psychology in the 21st century is about, where it is going and the issues it must address.

• ISBN-10 0335211267
• ISBN-13 978-0335211265
• Edition 1st
• Publisher Open Univ Pr
• Publication date October 15, 2003
• Language English
• Dimensions 6.5 x 1 x 9.25 inches
• Print length 384 pages
• See all details

Editorial Reviews

About the author, product details.

• Publisher ‏ : ‎ Open Univ Pr; 1st edition (October 15, 2003)
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• Paperback ‏ : ‎ 384 pages
• ISBN-10 ‏ : ‎ 0335211267
• ISBN-13 ‏ : ‎ 978-0335211265
• Item Weight ‏ : ‎ 1.63 pounds
• Dimensions ‏ : ‎ 6.5 x 1 x 9.25 inches

About the author

Wendy stainton rogers.

Wendy Stainton Rogers is a professor emerita in Health Psychology at the Open University, retired and has recently brought out a new book: A Feminist Companion to Social Psychology, together with Madeleine Pownall. Writing a book across the generations (Maddi is in her 20s and I am in my 70s) has been an amazing experience. We are very proud of this book, it is the first in a new series of Feminist Companions to Psychology, published by Open University Press. The idea for the book is to be a somewhat mischievous friend who leads you through the curriculum from a feminist perspective, calling out sexism when it manifests itself and giggling when it gets pompous.

Wendy has also got an alter-ego, being a 'bit' of Beryl Curt, a quite fascinating author who, despite suffering from congenital acorporality, has (like Wendy herself) been making trouble for psychology for more years than either are prepared to admit. Beryl's book, Textuality and Tectonics, was published in 1994 and is one of the first Critical Psychology textbooks. You can still find second hand copies if you are lucky!

But it's troublemaking with a purpose: Wendy is very much into asking difficult questions, unsettling things we take for granted and generally challenging mainstream psychology's smug claims to offer a reliable, factual science of human behaviour.

Wendy's books span a wide range of topics reflecting a rather motley career across a variety of fields. All share, though, a critical approach and a social justice agenda with a wicked sense of humour that delights in debunking pomposity and academic snobbery.

Customer reviews

Our goal is to make sure every review is trustworthy and useful. That's why we use both technology and human investigators to block fake reviews before customers ever see them.  Learn more

We block Amazon accounts that violate our community guidelines. We also block sellers who buy reviews and take legal actions against parties who provide these reviews.  Learn how to report

• Sort reviews by Top reviews Most recent Top reviews

Top reviews from the United States

Top reviews from other countries.

• Amazon Newsletter
• About Amazon
• Accessibility
• Sustainability
• Press Center
• Investor Relations
• Amazon Devices
• Amazon Science
• Sell on Amazon
• Sell apps on Amazon
• Supply to Amazon
• Protect & Build Your Brand
• Become an Affiliate
• Become a Delivery Driver
• Start a Package Delivery Business
• Advertise Your Products
• Self-Publish with Us
• Become an Amazon Hub Partner
• › See More Ways to Make Money
• Amazon Visa
• Amazon Store Card
• Amazon Secured Card
• Amazon Business Card
• Shop with Points
• Credit Card Marketplace
• Reload Your Balance
• Amazon Currency Converter
• Your Account
• Your Orders
• Shipping Rates & Policies
• Amazon Prime
• Returns & Replacements
• Manage Your Content and Devices
• Recalls and Product Safety Alerts

• Conditions of Use
• Privacy Notice
• Consumer Health Data Privacy Disclosure
• Your Ads Privacy Choices

• Tools and Resources
• Customer Services
• Affective Science
• Biological Foundations of Psychology
• Clinical Psychology: Disorders and Therapies
• Cognitive Psychology/Neuroscience
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational/School Psychology
• Forensic Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems of Psychology
• Individual Differences
• Methods and Approaches in Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational and Institutional Psychology
• Personality
• Psychology and Other Disciplines
• Social Psychology
• Sports Psychology
• Back to results
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

Gordon allport.

• Raymond E. Fancher Raymond E. Fancher York University, Department of Psychology
• https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190236557.013.829
• Published online: 27 August 2020

Gordon W. Allport was a prominent Harvard University psychologist during the mid-20th century, notable both for his early and effective promotion of “personality” as an important psychological subdiscipline, and in his later career as a social psychologist for works on several issues of major social importance. In 1921 he and his older brother Floyd Allport jointly proposed the study and measurement of traits as the foundation of a new subdiscipline of personality psychology, with Gordon’s Harvard doctoral research a pilot study demonstrating the feasibility of the approach. On a subsequent postdoctoral fellowship in Germany Allport became impressed by William Stern’s “personalistic” psychology, which held that a person’s “individuality” could be defined in two ways: relational individuality, comprised of the particular combination of numerous measurable traits manifested by a subject in studies such as Allport’s thesis; and real individuality, a Gestalt-like conception of a personality that is more than just the sum of its parts, and discoverable only through a qualitative analysis of the traits’ role in an overall life history. These ideas inspired in Allport a conception of personality as a broad and independent psychological field that would incorporate both the “nomothetic,” experimental methods of the natural sciences in measuring and studying personality traits, and the non-experimental “idiographic” methods utilized in the historical and humanistic fields for providing conceptions of wholly integrated, unique personalities. Noting that Anglo-American psychology was heavily dominated by the former approach, he became an outspoken advocate of the latter as a necessary complement to it.

Allport taught undergraduate seminars promoting this conception at Harvard and Dartmouth between 1924 and 1930, before returning permanently to Harvard in 1930. There, both independently and in collaborations with others, he conducted and promoted seminal personality research employing both nomothetic and idiographic methods. His comprehensive and authoritative 1937 textbook, Personality: A Psychological Interpretation , was a landmark in establishing personality as a major psychological discipline. With enhanced reputation, Allport became a leading institutional figure in American psychology. For the rest of his career he continued to advocate an inclusive, “eclectic” approach to personality psychology, while also turning attention to important social issues such as wartime morale and propaganda, the influence of radio as a mass medium, the role of religion in personality and society, and with particular impact the nature of prejudice.

• personality psychology
• relational versus real individuality
• nomothetic versus idiographic methods
• functional autonomy
• eclecticism

You do not currently have access to this article

Please login to access the full content.

Access to the full content requires a subscription

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Psychology. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 15 June 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [185.80.149.115]
• 185.80.149.115

Character limit 500 /500

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 10 June 2024

Social and nonsocial synchrony are interrelated and romantically attractive

• M. Cohen   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5454-1994 1 ,
• M. Abargil   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8489-0052 1 ,
• M. Ahissar   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7694-8111 1 &
• S. Atzil   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4074-6777 1  

Communications Psychology volume  2 , Article number:  57 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

686 Accesses

16 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Human behaviour

The mechanisms of romantic bonding in humans are largely unknown. Recent research suggests that physiological synchrony between partners is associated with bonding. This study combines an experimental approach with a naturalistic dating setup to test whether the individual differences in social and nonsocial synchrony are interdependent, and linked to romantic attractiveness. In a preregistered online experiment with 144 participants, we discover that inducing physiological synchrony between an actor and an actress determines their attractiveness ratings by participants, indicating that synchrony can increase perceived attraction. In a lab-based naturalistic speed-dating experiment, we quantify in 48 participants the individual tendency for social physiological synchrony, nonsocial sensorimotor synchrony, and romantic attractiveness. We discover that the individual propensity to synchronize in social and nonsocial tasks is correlated. Some individuals synchronize better regardless of partners or tasks, and such Super Synchronizers are rated as more attractive. Altogether, this demonstrates that humans prefer romantic partners who can synchronize.

Similar content being viewed by others

Bio-behavioral synchrony is a potential mechanism for mate selection in humans

Synchronized affect in shared experiences strengthens social connection

Physiological synchrony is associated with attraction in a blind date setting

Introduction.

Romantic bonding is a central feature of human life. It is associated with well-being 1 , 2 , 3 , physical health 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , mental health 11 , 12 , 13 , happiness 14 , life satisfaction 15 , development 16 , and sexual desire 17 . Yet, the neural and behavioral mechanisms that determine why we are attracted to selected individuals, and not others, are still unknown. From an evolutionary perspective, attractiveness reflects a preference for adaptations that increase survival and reproduction 18 , 19 . Accordingly, attractiveness is affected by physical features 20 , 21 , 22 , resources, social position, and strength 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 .

In addition to such static features of fitness, recent research points out that dynamic interactive features, such as synchrony, may also determine attraction in humans. We and others recently demonstrated that physiological synchrony predicts romantic and sexual attraction between partners during a speed-date 27 , 28 . In psychobiology, dyadic synchrony refers to the temporal matching of rhythms in physiology, behavior, or affective states between two partners 29 . Synchrony between humans has been widely documented across different measures and time scales, including neural function 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , arousal 36 , respiration 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , heart rate 40 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , hormones 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , motion 34 , 51 , 52 , 53 , and behavior 46 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 . Across domains, physiological synchrony between adults is consistently associated with social cooperation 58 , romantic satisfaction 39 , and sexual satisfaction 59 , 60 . In addition to adult-adult bonds, synchrony was studied in parents and infants as a mechanism for bonding, attachment, and co-regulation 54 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , predicting developmental outcomes and social skills 68 . Altogether, the ability to synchronize with a partner is a central feature of social behavior.

Despite its key role in social behavior, synchrony is not exclusively a social phenomenon, as synchronization is evident not only between individuals but also within individuals, such as in sensorimotor control 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 . While social and nonsocial synchrony have been widely studied, it is still unclear whether they share common mechanisms 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 . Interestingly, recent research discovered that individuals with autism show impaired performance in a sensorimotor synchronization task, where they are requested to adjust a finger tap to synchronize with an external metronome beat 71 , 72 , compared to neurotypicals 77 . Moreover, sensorimotor synchronization was associated with the self-reported score of social function 77 . Based on this, we hypothesize that the ability for social interactions is rooted in domain-general features of sensorimotor integration, which is key for both social and nonsocial synchrony.

This research aims to answer two key open questions about the role of synchrony in romantic attraction. First, does synchrony have a role in eliciting attraction? Alternatively, synchrony can result from an increased attraction that raises the motivation to synchronize. Such interactions can also be bi-directional. Second, are there individual differences in the ability to synchronize that determine attractiveness? To address these questions, we ran two experiments. The first is an online experiment that tested whether experimentally manipulating the level of synchrony between a man and a woman determines their attractiveness ratings by 144 participants. The second is a speed-dating experiment (Fig.  1 ), in which participants meet for four speed-dates with different partners in a round-robin setup (48 participants, 85 dates). We quantified in each participant the individual levels of social synchrony , or tendency to synchronize regardless of the partner, by calculating their average electrodermal synchrony with different partners during speed-dates. In addition to social synchrony, we quantified the individual performance of nonsocial synchrony in a finger tapping sensorimotor task. Last, we calculated the individual scores of romantic attractiveness by averaging the attractiveness scores each participant received from their different partners. We tested whether there are Super Synchronizers who can better synchronize regardless of the task or the partner and whether Super Synchronizers are rated as more attractive.

Forty-eight men and women meet for five-minute speed dates in a dedicated room with a homey arrangement while their physiology is sampled at 4 Hz using Empatica E4 wristbands 28 . Physiological synchrony between partners is calculated as the Pearson Correlation between the levels of electrodermal activity (EDA) of the man and the woman during the date. Participants rate their interest in the partner twice, once before they start to interact, and again after the date is complete. To assess individual rates of synchrony and attraction, participants partake in four dates, and we calculate their Individual Electrodermal Synchrony Scores and their Individual Romantic Attractiveness Scores by averaging the scores across their dates. We investigate whether initial interest affects physiological synchrony during the date and whether individual synchrony scores predict individual attractiveness scores.

Online experiment

Sample size and power analysis.

Before the experiment, we estimated the target sample size using power analysis (G*Power 3.1.9.4) for repeated measures MANOVA between two different groups, with one independent variable (synchrony) and two dependent variables (attractiveness of the actors, attraction between the actors). The parameters of the power analysis are a power of 0.95 to detect an effect size of Cohen’s f = 0.3 at a standard α = 0.05 error probability rate, with an estimated correlation between repeated measures of r = 0.8. The target sample size was 132 participants (66 participants per condition), and we recruited 160 participants. This experiment was preregistered on August 28, 2022 – https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/H9WYR .

Participants

One hundred sixty participants were recruited via iPanel to participate in the online experiment. Out of these, 16 participants were excluded for not meeting the inclusion criteria (15 reported a diagnosis of a psychiatric disorder, and one exceeded the predefined age range). The final dataset comprises 144 participants (76 women; gender was determined based on participant identification), aged 18–30 ( Mean  = 24.89, SD  = 3.61 years). Participants were randomly assigned to one of the two conditions: watch a high synchrony interaction (73 participants); or watch a low synchrony interaction (71 participants). All participants were Hebrew speakers. Participants were remunerated for their participation. The ethical committee of the Faculty of Social Sciences of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem approved the experiment per relevant guidelines and regulations. Each participant signed an informed consent form before participation.

In the first stage of the experiment, participants completed a socio-demographic questionnaire. Then, participants watched a 92-second video of a low or high synchrony interaction between an actor and an actress. After the video, participants provided four attractiveness ratings 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 : (1) how romantically attractive is the man in the video, (2) how romantically attractive is the woman in the video, (3) the attraction of the man in the video to the woman in the video, (4) the attraction of the woman in the video to the man in the video. At the end of the experiment, participants were asked to rate the perceived behavioral synchrony on the date as a manipulation validation. This question was introduced at the end of the experiment to avoid priming the participants towards the phenomenon of synchrony while rating the attractiveness of the actors. The t-test between the perceived synchrony ratings for the synchronous condition ( Mean  = 5.863, SD  = 2.411) and the non-synchronous condition ( Mean  = 4.338, SD  = 2.443) shows a significant difference between the two conditions ( t  = −3.769, df  = 141.76, p-value  < 0.001, Cohen’s d  = 0.628, 95% Confidence Interval  = [0.966, 0.291]). Attractiveness and synchrony ratings were rated on a Likert scale (0 is the lowest score, 10 is the highest score) using Qualtrics.

The stimuli included videos of a man and a woman on a date performed by actors. The same actor and actress participated in both conditions (high synchrony interaction; low synchrony interaction), and the manipulated variable in the videos was the level of social synchrony between the actors. This was achieved by directing instructions given to the actors during filming. In the synchronous condition, the actors were directed to increase their physiological synchrony by being more attuned and sensitive to the partner and trying to adapt to them. In the non-synchronous condition, the actors were directed to lower their physiological synchrony by acting independently of their partner, being less affected by them. The videos were controlled for the content of the actors’ conversation, the physical appearance of the actors, the settings (a dedicated room at our lab with a homey arrangement), the actors’ positions, and the length of the videos (92 seconds). The level of synchronization in the videos was confirmed with physiological assessments of electrodermal activity during the interactions. In the high synchrony interaction, the electrodermal synchrony was r = 0.614, compared to r = −0.097 in the low synchrony interaction. To further address potential differences between the two videos, we conducted a post hoc behavioral analysis to characterize the behavioral display of the actors in the two videos (Supplementary Note S 1 , Supplementary Table  S1 , and Supplementary Fig.  S1 ).

During each interaction, we quantified the electrodermal synchrony between the partners by measuring the electrodermal activity of each person using Empatica E4 wristbands placed on the wrist of the left hand. Electrodermal activity refers to the continuous variation in the electrical characteristics of the skin. Varying numbers of eccrine sweat glands secrete varying amounts of sweat, depending on the degree of sympathetic activation, and as more sweat is being secreted, electrodermal activity increases 82 , 83 , 84 . Typically, electrodermal activity is measured as skin conductance by applying a small, constant voltage to the skin. Skin conductance can be calculated by measuring the current flow through the electrodes, as the voltage is kept constant 83 , 85 , 86 . Electrodermal activity is controlled by the sympathetic nervous system and reflects the level of physiological arousal 82 , 87 . Electrodermal activity is a validated and standard measure in psychology 82 , 88 . Furthermore, electrodermal activity has been reported to be sensitive to social stimuli and reactive during social interactions 89 , 90 , specifically between romantic partners 27 , 28 , 36 , making it a valid autonomic measure for social synchrony in a romantic context.

The wristbands contain an electrodermal activity sensor with a sampling frequency of 4 Hz, resolution of one digit –900 pSiemens, range of 0.01–100 μSiemens, and alternating current (8 Hz frequency) with a maximum peak to peak value of 100 μAmps (at 100 μSiemens) ( https://empatica.app.box.com/v/E4-User-Manual ). The obtained electrodermal signal was uploaded to the E4 application for Windows after each run, then downloaded from the Empatica website for processing and analysis. Previous studies reported using Empatica E4 wristbands in behavioral experiments that measured electrodermal activity 91 , 92 , 93 . Notably, the E4 wristband is quick to connect, wearable, and wireless, hence it does not interfere with natural behavior in experimental settings, enhancing the ecological validity of the obtained results ( https://empatica.app.box.com/v/E4-User-Manual , https://empatica.app.box.com/v/E4-getting-started ). The E4 device was validated in a previous dating experiment conducted in our lab 28 , which was consistent with additional validating studies 94 , 95 , 96 . The preprocessing of the raw data included the temporal alignment of the data from both partners based on a global timestamp ( https://empatica.app.box.com/v/E4-User-Manual , https://empatica.app.box.com/v/E4-getting-started ). Then, to calculate the electrodermal synchrony between the partners, we applied Pearson Correlation using R (2022.12.0 + 353) 28 .

Speed-dating experiment

Power was calculated according to the association between synchrony and romantic attractiveness. Given the multiple sources of random variability in a design, simulations that capitalize on random effects revealed in actual data are the most accurate method of determining the power 97 . Hence, to estimate our target sample size, we used bootstrapped power calculation on a separate dataset of a previous speed-dating experiment from our lab with 30 participants 28 . Using bootstrap sampling ( n  = 10,000) to assess the power of different sample sizes, we found that to reach a statistical power of 95%, a sample size of 48 participants is needed. Forty-eight participants were recruited, out of which physiological data were available for 32 participants (64 dates), with a statistical power of 81% in the analyses that include electrodermal synchrony. This experiment was not preregistered.

Forty-eight students (24 men and 24 women; gender was determined based on participant identification), aged 19–28 ( Mean  = 24.72, SD  = 1.93 years) participated in the speed-dating experiment. The experiment was conducted over seven runs, where in each run, four men and four women were invited to the lab to meet in a speed-dating round-robin rotation. Of the forty-eight participants, thirty-two completed dates with all four partners. Due to last-minute participant cancellations, ten participants completed dates with three partners and six participants with two partners. Due to equipment malfunction, the physiological data was not successfully collected for runs 5–7 (16 participants; 8 women), and thus, these runs are not included in the physiological analyses. Participants were recruited via social media and the university’s online experiment system. All participants are native Hebrew speakers, not diagnosed with any psychiatric disorder, heterosexual, cis-gender, single, and interested in a romantic relationship. The ethical committee of the Faculty of Social Sciences of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem approved the experiment per relevant guidelines and regulations. Each participant signed an informed consent before participating and was remunerated for their participation.

Men and women met in a speed-dating round-robin rotation. Each date lasted five minutes and took place in a dedicated room with a homey atmosphere. At the beginning of each date, participants reported their initial interest by rating their interest in succeeding on this specific date on a scale of 1–5, where one is not interested and five is highly interested. Immediately after each date, participants rated their post-date attraction to the partner. We recorded the participants’ electrodermal activity during the dates.

After the dates, participants completed a paced finger tapping task. The participants were asked to synchronize to the beat of an external metronome by tapping with their finger on a wooden box 71 , 72 , 77 (Fig.  2 ). The task was composed of six blocks, using three protocols (two blocks of each): fixed metronome tempo (2 Hz, beat every 500 ms); tempo alternated (every random 7–13 intervals) between two beats: in one, they differed by 120 ms; in the other, by 180 ms. Each block lasted sixty seconds, with a five-second break before each block (six minutes and thirty seconds total).

Participants completed a tapping task, where they were asked to synchronize their finger tap on a wooden box to the beat of an external metronome 71 , 72 , 77 . The illustrations of the metronome represent the timing of the auditory beats, and those of the hand represent the participant’s responses. Perfect sensorimotor synchrony reflects perfect alignment between the auditory beats and the participant’s taps, whereas more significant gaps represent lower synchrony. Off-beat errors are typically negative because participants’ tapings usually precede the beat, demonstrating that they learn to predict it. Individual Sensorimotor Synchrony Scores were calculated as the average size of the off-beat temporal gap (i.e., asynchrony) between the auditory beats and participant’s taps across the entire task.

Electrodermal synchrony Scores

Synchrony reflects partners’ simultaneous alignment of electrodermal activity, and was calculated for each date as the Pearson Correlation between the two partners’ electrodermal activity during the date using R (2022.12.0 + 353). Given that every participant partook in multiple dates, the electrodermal synchrony scores were averaged per participant across all of their dates to compute an Individual Electrodermal Synchrony Score . Our previous research demonstrated that synchrony during the first two minutes of the date is primarily predictive of the romantic attraction between the participants 28 . Thus, synchrony was calculated during the first two minutes and across the entire date; see  Supplementary Notes S 2 .1, S 2 .2, and S 2.3 for all electrodermal synchrony measures. Bonferroni correction is applied to control for multiple hypothesis testing.

Romantic attractiveness scores

Attractiveness reflects the attraction ratings that each participant received from their partners. After each date, participants rated their level of attraction to the partner on a scale of 1–5. The romantic attraction ratings of each participant were averaged across all of their dates, computing an individual measure of Individual Romantic Attractiveness Scores . Out of 85 dates, romantic attraction scores were successfully collected on 83 dates. On one date, neither partner completed the attraction questionnaire, and on another date, the man did not complete it.

Sensorimotor synchrony scores

The finger tapping task quantifies how accurately and reliably participants synchronize their finger tap to an auditory metronome beat. Perfectly synchronous behavior means perfect alignment between the auditory beats and the participant’s taps, whereas more significant gaps represent lower synchrony. Each participant is given an Individual Sensorimotor Synchrony Score based on their mean performance score on the task. The score is calculated by averaging the size of the off-beat temporal errors in milliseconds between the auditory beats and participant’s taps (referred to asynchrony ) across the 6-minute duration of the task. A perfect performance is scored 0, representing complete sensorimotor synchrony with no off-beat temporal error. In contrast, increased negative values (where the finger taps typically precede the metronome beats) represent poorer sensorimotor synchrony between the auditory stimuli and motor finger taps. Sensorimotor data collection was completed for 44 participants.

Testing the association between the initial interest and electrodermal synchrony during the date

We tested whether initial interest in the partner predicts the rate synchrony during the date. Since this analysis is performed on separate dates, we applied a multilevel model to account for the statistical non-independence of the data points as similar individuals participated on four dates, nested in four different runs 28 , 98 , 99 . The initial interests of both the man and the woman were applied as fixed effects, while accounting for the random effects for the intercept of recurring data from individuals that repeated on different dates and for their nesting in specific runs. To augment the classical statistical inference, we also included Bayesian analyses and computed Jeffreys-Zellener-Siow (JZS) Bayes Factors (BFs). The default prior settings (used by R) were left unchanged. BF 01 values around 3 provide weak to moderate support in favor of the null hypothesis 100 . The analyses include 64 dates between thirty-two participants (16 men, 16 women), aged 19–28 ( Mean  = 24.8, SD  = 2.02 years).

Testing the association between electrodermal synchrony scores and sensorimotor synchrony scores

We used Pearson Correlation to test the association between Electrodermal Synchrony Scores and Sensorimotor Synchrony Scores (both are continuous variables, N  = 28 participants (15 men, 13 women), with an age range of 19–28 ( Mean  = 24.88, SD  = 2.1 years)).

Testing the association between romantic attractiveness scores and electrodermal synchrony scores

We tested whether the individual ability of electrodermal synchrony during the date predicts attraction by calculating the correlation between Electrodermal Synchrony Scores and Romantic Attractiveness Scores. We used the Spearman Correlation since the attraction was measured as a rank variable on a scale of one to five. ( N  = 32 participants (16 men, 16 women), with an age range of 19–28 ( Mean  = 24.8, SD  = 2.02 years)).

Testing the association between romantic attractiveness scores and sensorimotor synchrony scores

We used the Spearman Correlation to test the association between the Romantic Attractiveness Scores and the Sensorimotor Synchrony Scores. The Spearman Correlation is applied since attraction was measured as a categorical variable on a scale of one to five. Forty-four participants (23 men, 21 women), aged 19–28 ( Mean  = 24.76, SD  = 1.97 years), completed both the speed-date and metronome tasks.

Reporting summary

Further information on research design is available in the  Nature Portfolio Reporting Summary linked to this article.

Does increasing physiological synchrony increase attraction, and does increased attraction increase synchrony?

While the correlation between physiological synchrony and romantic attraction has been reported by two studies 27 , 28 , the direction of the relationship between synchrony and attraction is still unknown. We assessed the extent to which increased physiological synchrony leads to increased romantic attraction, and vice versa – the extent to which increased initial attraction leads to elevated synchronization.

A preregistered online experiment: testing the extent to which manipulating physiological synchrony between an actor and an actress determines their attractiveness ratings by participants

In an online experiment with an experimental design, 144 participants observed a video of a man and a woman actors interacting in either high or low synchrony levels. Based on previous research demonstrating an association between synchrony and attraction 27 , 28 , we hypothesized that increasing synchrony between the actors would make participants rate them as more attractive and more attracted to each other.

We applied a repeated measures MANOVA with one independent variable (level of synchrony, high v. low) and two dependent variables (the total attractiveness of the actors and perceived attraction between the actors). As predicted, inducing synchrony significantly increases attraction scores ( F (1,142)  = 6.073; p  = 0.003). Compared to the low-synchrony interaction, the high-synchrony interaction increased both the attractiveness scores of the actors ( F (1,142)  = 5.034; p  = 0.026) and the perceived attraction between the actors ( F (1,142)  = 11.92; p  < 0.001) (Fig.  3 ). Assumptions on homogeneity of variances, multivariate normality, and normality of residuals were confirmed by Levene’s tests (Actors’ attractiveness: F (1,142)  = 2.425, p  = 0.122; Actors’ attraction to each other: F (1,142)  = 0.443, p  = 0.507), the Mardia’s test ( Skewness statistic  = 7.1, p  = 0.131; Kurtosis statistic  = 0.841, p  = 0.4), and the Shapiro–Wilk test ( W  = 0.993, p  = 0.248), respectively.

a An actor and an actress are rated as more attractive when in sync ( M  = 8.507; SE  = 0.493; 95% Confidence Interval  = [7.542, 9.475]; N  = 73 participants) compared to the same actor and actress when not in sync ( M  = 7.07; SE  = 0.406; 95% Confidence Interval  = [6.291, 7.86]; N  = 71 participants). b An actor and an actress are rated as more attracted to each other when in sync ( M  = 11.411; SE  = 0.421; 95% Confidence Interval  = [10.59, 12.23]; N  = 73 participants), compared to when not in sync ( M  = 9.282; SE  = 0.451; 95% Confidence Interval  = [8.404, 10.152]; N  = 71 participants). The Y-axes represent the sum of ratings to both actors, and the error bars represent 1 standard error from the mean. * represents p -values between 0.01 and 0.05; *** represents p -values smaller than 0.001.

Testing the extent to which attraction impacts physiological synchrony

To examine the extent to which initial interest in the partner at the beginning of the date determines the electrodermal synchrony between partners during the date, we tested the association between the initial interest in the partner measured before the partners started to interact, and the electrodermal synchrony during the date.

Multilevel model analysis shows that initial interest in the partner at the beginning of the date is not significantly associated with electrodermal synchrony during the date in both men ( β  = 0.061; p  = 0.44; 95% Confidence Interval  = [−0.091, 0.213]; N  = 64 dates) and women ( β  = 0.039; p  = 0.513; 95% Confidence Interval  = [−0.076, 0.153]; N  = 64 dates). Given the null results, we also computed Spearman Correlations and the Jeffreys-Zellener-Siow (JZS) Bayes Factors (BFs), for men ( Spearman r  = 0.105; p  = 0.41; 95% Confidence Interval  = [−0.126, 0.335]; BF 01  = 2.44; N  = 64 dates), for women ( Spearman r  = 0.059; p  = 0.646; 95% Confidence Interval  = [−0.207, 0.324]; BF 01  = 3.162; N  = 64 dates), and for both ( Spearman r  = 0.128; p  = 0.312; 95% Confidence Interval  = [−0.129, 0.386]; BF 01  = 2.247; N  = 64 dates). The results provide anecdotal to moderate support in favor of the null hypothesis, indicating little credible evidence for the effect of initial interest on electrodermal synchrony 100 .

Summarizing 1a and 1b demonstrates that the level of synchrony determines the level of attractiveness and that there is no credible evidence that initial interest determines the level of synchrony.

Is synchrony interrelated across tasks and a determinant of attractiveness?

Synchrony is correlated across social and nonsocial tasks.

To examine the association between social and nonsocial synchrony, we calculated the correlation between the Individual Electrodermal Synchrony Scores (social synchrony during speed-dates) and the Individual Sensorimotor Synchrony Scores (nonsocial synchrony in the finger tapping task). Results indicate that individual scores of social and nonsocial synchrony are significantly correlated ( Pearson r  = 0.494; p  = 0.008; 95% Confidence Interval  = [0.148, 0.732]; N  = 28) (Fig.  4a ), as some individuals tend to have increased synchrony scores regardless of the task or the partner, to which we refer as Super Synchronizers (see Supplementary Note S 3 , Supplementary Figs.  S2 and   S3 for statistical characterization of Super Synchronizers ). Pearson Correlation is calculated here since both measurements are continuous.

a The individual ability for synchrony is associated in social and nonsocial tasks: the individual scores of social physiological synchrony with partners while dating correlate with the individual scores of nonsocial sensorimotor synchrony in a finger tapping task. b The individual scores of social physiological synchrony with partners while dating correlate with individual scores of romantic attractiveness. c Individual scores of nonsocial sensorimotor synchrony correlate with individual scores of romantic attractiveness. Electrodermal synchrony scores were calculated as the average of the electrodermal synchrony scores across four dates. Sensorimotor synchrony scores are calculated by the performance in the finger tapping task, where values closer to zero reflect minimal error and increased sensorimotor synchrony. Romantic attractiveness scores are calculated as the average of the attractiveness ratings across dates.

Individuals with increased electrodermal synchrony are rated as more attractive

To examine the extent to which individuals with increased social synchrony are rated as more romantically attractive, we calculated the correlation between the Individual Electrodermal Synchrony Scores and the Individual Romantic Attractiveness Scores . The results show that the individual propensity to physiologically synchronize with partners while dating is correlated with romantic attractiveness ( Spearman r  = 0.415; p  = 0.018; 95% Confidence Interval  = [0.08, 0.746]; N  = 32) (Fig.  4b ). This effect is optimal when computing the electrodermal synchrony for the first two minutes of the date, based on our previous research showing that this time frame is most predictive of romantic attraction 28 . When computing the electrodermal synchrony across the entire date, the results are Spearman r  = 0.342; p  = 0.056; 95% Confidence Interval  = [−0.015, 0.695]; N  = 32. See Supplementary Note S 4 for analyses on the date level.

Individuals with increased sensorimotor synchrony are rated as more attractive

To examine the extent to which individuals with better performance in the tapping task are rated as more romantically attractive, we calculated the correlation between the Individual Sensorimotor Synchrony Scores and the Individual Romantic Attractiveness Scores . The results demonstrate that individuals with an improved ability of sensorimotor synchrony are rated as more attractive ( Spearman r  = 0.413; p  = 0.005; 95% Confidence Interval  = [0.176, 0.648]; N  = 44) (Fig.  4c ).

Our findings demonstrate that experimentally manipulating the physiological synchrony between two partners as they interact affects their perceived attractiveness: the same actors are rated more attractive by participants when in sync than when not in sync. This suggests that attractiveness can be experimentally affected by synchrony. Moreover, the capacity to synchronize is individually associated in social and nonsocial tasks and predicts the participants’ attractiveness. Some individuals are Super Synchronizers , i.e., demonstrate increased synchrony regardless of the task or the partner, and those individuals are considered more romantically attractive.

The association between electrodermal synchrony and sensorimotor synchrony suggests that social synchrony is rooted in domain-general sensorimotor skills, potentially because both require behavioral adjustment to dynamic sensory input, whether social or nonsocial. Sensorimotor synchrony measured by the finger tapping task requires adjustment of finger movements to an auditory stimulus, and social synchrony measured by electrodermal activity requires adjustment of physiological processes. Notably, both processes are regulated in an anticipatory manner 101 , 102 , 103 . This supports the hypothesis that, like sensorimotor synchrony, social interactions also rely on prediction 104 , 105 , perception-action 106 , and learning 106 , 107 , 108 , 109 , 110 , 111 , 112 , possibly based on general sensorimotor predictive mechanisms needed to interact 73 . Interestingly, improved performance in those features is associated with romantic attraction.

There are several possible explanations for why synchrony is attractive. First, physiological synchrony can benefit physiological regulation in close partners 28 , or- social regulation 113 , 114 , 115 . This hypothesis is supported by evidence showing that physiological synchrony is correlated with improved physiological regulation of different homeostatic systems, including temperature 116 , immune function 117 , heart rate 64 , and affect 113 , 118 . Through social regulation, humans can learn to prefer synchronizing partners and to synchronize with others to optimize homeostasis 28 , 30 , 114 , 115 , 119 . Second, interacting with Super Synchronizers, who can better detect and adjust to external cues, can result in a more adapted interaction, with immediate physiological and social gains, making synchronous interactions more rewarding and enjoyable 114 , 115 , 120 . Lastly, being a computationally heavy task, the improved ability to synchronize can indicate greater cognitive aptitudes and fitness, which is in line with the ‘handicap’ principle by Amotz and Avishag Zahavi, suggesting that costly signals reflect the high qualification of their owners 26 , which are considered more physiologically fit, and thus more attractive 26 . Importantly, such an evolutionary explanation is a speculation and hard to evaluate empirically. Yet, the hypotheses that synchrony is attractive because it is rewarding and improves physiological regulation are empirical questions that can be addressed in future research.

In addition to physiological synchrony 27 , 28 , 36 , 37 , 40 , behavioral synchrony is another focus of study in romantic attraction 121 , 122 , demonstrating that specific non-verbal behaviors are related to romantic and sexual interest 123 , 124 , 125 , 126 . Specifically, increased romantic interest is related to faster and more frequent movements, more patterns initiated by the male, longer patterns of behavior, more repetitions of the same patterns 124 , 126 , and coupling of body sway 127 . In addition to romantic interest and attraction 28 , 128 , coordinated motion was found to be associated with rapport between teacher and student 129 , attentiveness in physician-patient interactions 51 , and intimacy between same-sex strangers 53 . Such behavioral transactions could serve as a behavioral mechanism that supports physiological synchrony by providing consistent behavioral cues that signal the physiological fluctuations to the partner and enabling an attuned response. Future research is needed to investigate how people regulate their behavior to physiologically synchronize during social interactions, and the extent to which the association between different behavioral patterns and romantic attraction is mediated through social physiological regulation.

Limitations

Our findings show that the individual capacity for synchrony is associated across social and sensorimotor tasks and predicts attractiveness. This raises the hypothesis that synchrony is an individual trait. While synchrony in this study was associated across social and nonsocial tasks, it was not tested longitudinally. Thus, we cannot yet determine its stability across time. Previous longitudinal research on mothers and children shows that dyadic synchrony is stable across time 130 . Yet, future research is needed to determine whether synchrony is an individual trait, discover its underlying cognitive, behavioral, and neural mechanisms, and assess its social consequences.

Another limitation is the causal inference of synchrony and attraction. This research provides initial evidence that experimentally manipulating synchrony in actors increases their attractiveness ratings by participants. Moreover, increased synchrony during the date precedes increased attraction 27 , 28 , while there is no credible evidence that initial interest at the beginning of the date predicts improved synchrony during the date. This suggests that synchrony potentially elicits attraction, and not the consequence of attraction. However, it is important to note that we can still not infer the causal effect of synchrony on actual romantic feelings of partners on dates. This must be addressed in future research that manipulates the level of synchrony during actual dates, examining its short-term effects on the mutual romantic interest of the participants, and on the long-term relationship outcomes. Lastly, future research is needed to investigate the role of synchrony in mate selection in homosexuals.

In summary, this research demonstrates that some individuals are Super Synchronizers regardless of the task or the partner, and Super Synchronizers are more attractive. This suggests that mate selection in humans depends on dynamic interactive features that enable humans to attune their physiological regulation.

Data availability

All data used in the analyses is available at https://osf.io/nzhv6/ .

Code availability

The R code (2022.12.0+353) used for the analyses is available at https://osf.io/nzhv6/ .

Collins, W. A. Relationships and development during adolescence: Interpersonal adaptation to individual change. Personal. Relatsh. 4 , 1–14 (1997).

Article   Google Scholar  

Collins, W. A. More than Myth: The Developmental Significance of Romantic Relationships During Adolescence. J. Res. Adolescence 13 , 1–24 (2003).

Johnson, H. D., Kent, A. & Yale, E. Examination of Identity and Romantic Relationship Intimacy Associations with Well-Being in Emerging Adulthood. Identity 12 , 296–319 (2012).

Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., Gouin, J.-P. & Hantsoo, L. Close relationships, inflammation, and health. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 35 , 33–38 (2010).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Weiss, R. L. & Aved, B. M. Marital satisfaction and depression as predictors of physical health status. J. Consulting Clin. Psychol. 46 , 1379–1384 (1978).

Pietromonaco, P. R., Uchino, B. & Dunkel Schetter, C. Close relationship processes and health: Implications of attachment theory for health and disease. Health Psychol. 32 , 499–513 (2013).

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Powers, S. I., Pietromonaco, P. R., Gunlicks, M. & Sayer, A. Dating couples’ attachment styles and patterns of cortisol reactivity and recovery in response to a relationship conflict. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 90 , 613–628 (2006).

Pietromonaco, P. R. & Collins, N. L. Interpersonal mechanisms linking close relationships to health. Am. Psychologist 72 , 531–542 (2017).

Pietromonaco, P. R. & Beck, L. A. Adult attachment and physical health. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 25 , 115–120 (2019).

Ge, F., Lembke, J. & Pietromonaco, P. R. Intimate Relationships and Physical Health. In The Wiley Encyclopedia of Health Psychology (eds. Paul, R. H., Salminen, L. E., Heaps, J. & Cohen, L. M.) 337–345 (Wiley, 2020). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119057840.ch83 .

Braithwaite, S. & Holt-Lunstad, J. Romantic relationships and mental health. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 13 , 120–125 (2017).

Braithwaite, S. R., Delevi, R. & Fincham, F. D. Romantic relationships and the physical and mental health of college students. Personal. Relatsh. 17 , 1–12 (2010).

Gove, W. R., Hughes, M. & Style, C. B. Does marriage have positive effects on the psychological well-being of the individual? J. Health Soc. Behav. 24 , 122–131 (1983).

Demir, M. Sweetheart, you really make me happy: romantic relationship quality and personality as predictors of happiness among emerging adults. J. Happiness Stud. 9 , 257–277 (2008).

Beckmeyer, J. J. & Cromwell, S. Romantic Relationship Status and Emerging Adult Well-Being: Accounting for Romantic Relationship Interest. Emerg. Adulthood 7 , 304–308 (2019).

Collins, W. A., Welsh, D. P. & Furman, W. Adolescent Romantic Relationships. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 60 , 631–652 (2009).

Van Lankveld, J., Jacobs, N., Thewissen, V., Dewitte, M. & Verboon, P. The associations of intimacy and sexuality in daily life: Temporal dynamics and gender effects within romantic relationships. J. Soc. Personal. Relatsh. 35 , 557–576 (2018).

Darwin, C. 1981. The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex . 2 vols. (Facsimile, 1871).

Rhodes, G., Simmons, L. W. & Peters, M. Attractiveness and sexual behavior: Does attractiveness enhance mating success? Evol. Hum. Behav. 26 , 186–201 (2005).

Borelli, C. & Berneburg, M. “Beauty lies in the eye of the beholder”? Aspects of beauty and attractiveness. JDDG J. Dtsch. Dermatologischen Ges. 8 , 326–330 (2009).

Google Scholar  

Fisher, A. N. & Stinson, D. A. Ambivalent attraction: Beauty determines whether men romantically desire or dismiss high status women. Personal. Individ. Differences 154 , 109681 (2020).

Mueser, K. T., Grau, B. W., Sussman, S. & Rosen, A. J. You’re only as pretty as you feel: Facial expression as a determinant of physical attractiveness. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 46 , 469–478 (1984).

Buss, D. M. Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behav. Brain Sci. 12 , 1–14 (1989).

Buunk, B. P., Dijkstra, P., Fetchenhauer, D. & Kenrick, D. T. Age and Gender Differences in Mate Selection Criteria for Various Involvement Levels. Personal. Relatsh. 9 , 271–278 (2002).

Sprecher, S., Sullivan, Q. & Hatfield, E. Mate selection preferences: Gender differences examined in a national sample. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 66 , 1074–1080 (1994).

Zahavi, A. & Zahavi, A. The Handicap Principle: A Missing Piece of Darwin’s Puzzle (Oxford University Press, 1999).

Prochazkova, E., Sjak-Shie, E., Behrens, F., Lindh, D. & Kret, M. E. Physiological synchrony is associated with attraction in a blind date setting. Nat. Hum. Behav. 6 , 269–278 (2021).

Zeevi, L. et al. Bio-behavioral synchrony is a potential mechanism for mate selection in humans. Sci. Rep. 12 , 4786 (2022).

Feldman, R. Parent?infant synchrony and the construction of shared timing; physiological precursors, developmental outcomes, and risk conditions. J. Child Psychol. Psychiat 48 , 329–354 (2007).

Goldstein, P., Weissman-Fogel, I., Dumas, G. & Shamay-Tsoory, S. G. Brain-to-brain coupling during handholding is associated with pain reduction. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA . 115 , E2528–E2537 (2018).

Azhari, A. et al. Physical presence of spouse enhances brain-to-brain synchrony in co-parenting couples. Sci. Rep. 10 , 7569 (2020).

Kinreich, S., Djalovski, A., Kraus, L., Louzoun, Y. & Feldman, R. Brain-to-Brain Synchrony during Naturalistic Social Interactions. Sci. Rep. 7 , 17060 (2017).

Liu, N. et al. NIRS-based hyperscanning reveals inter-brain neural synchronization during cooperative Jenga game with face-to-face communication. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 10 , 82 (2016).

McNaughton, K. A. & Redcay, E. Interpersonal synchrony in autism. Curr. Psychiatry Rep. 22 , 1–11 (2020).

Mu, Y., Guo, C. & Han, S. Oxytocin enhances inter-brain synchrony during social coordination in male adults. Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci. 11 , 1882–1893 (2016).

Coutinho, J. et al. Psychophysiological Synchrony During Verbal Interaction in Romantic Relationships. Fam. Proc. 58 , 716–733 (2019).

Chatel-Goldman, J., Congedo, M., Jutten, C. & Schwartz, J.-L. Touch increases autonomic coupling between romantic partners. Front. Behav. Neurosci . 8 , 95 (2014).

Goldstein, P., Weissman-Fogel, I. & Shamay-Tsoory, S. G. The role of touch in regulating inter-partner physiological coupling during empathy for pain. Sci. Rep. 7 , 3252 (2017).

Helm, J. L., Sbarra, D. A. & Ferrer, E. Coregulation of respiratory sinus arrhythmia in adult romantic partners. Emotion 14 , 522–531 (2014).

Danyluck, C. & Page-Gould, E. Social and Physiological Context can Affect the Meaning of Physiological Synchrony. Sci. Rep. 9 , 8222 (2019).

McFarland, D. H., Fortin, A. J. & Polka, L. Physiological measures of mother–infant interactional synchrony. Dev. Psychobiol. 62 , 50–61 (2020).

Bizzego, A. et al. Strangers, Friends, and Lovers Show Different Physiological Synchrony in Different Emotional States. Behav. Sci. 10 , 11 (2019).

Mitkidis, P., McGraw, J. J., Roepstorff, A. & Wallot, S. Building trust: Heart rate synchrony and arousal during joint action increased by public goods game. Physiol. Behav. 149 , 101–106 (2015).

Tschacher, W. & Meier, D. Physiological synchrony in psychotherapy sessions. Psychother. Res. 30 , 558–573 (2020).

Vanutelli, M. E., Gatti, L., Angioletti, L. & Balconi, M. Affective Synchrony and Autonomic Coupling during Cooperation: A Hyperscanning Study. BioMed. Res. Int. 2017 , 1–9 (2017).

Suveg, C., Shaffer, A. & Davis, M. Family stress moderates relations between physiological and behavioral synchrony and child self-regulation in mother-preschooler dyads: Physiological Synchrony in Mother-Child Dyads. Dev. Psychobiol. 58 , 83–97 (2016).

Pauly, T., Gerstorf, D., Ashe, M. C., Madden, K. M. & Hoppmann, C. A. You’re under my skin: Long-term relationship and health correlates of cortisol synchrony in older couples. J. Fam. Psychol. 35 , 69–79 (2021).

Pauly, T. et al. Cortisol Synchrony in Older Couples: Daily Socioemotional Correlates and Interpersonal Differences. Psychosom. Med. 82 , 669–677 (2020).

Saxbe, D. E. et al. Fathers’ decline in testosterone and synchrony with partner testosterone during pregnancy predicts greater postpartum relationship investment. Hormones Behav. 90 , 39–47 (2017).

Zilcha-Mano, S., Goldstein, P., Dolev-Amit, T. & Shamay-Tsoory, S. Oxytocin synchrony between patients and therapists as a mechanism underlying effective psychotherapy for depression. J. Consulting Clin. Psychol. 89 , 49–57 (2021).

Hart, Y. et al. Automated video analysis of non-verbal communication in a medical setting. Front. Psychol. 7 , 1130 (2016).

Latif, N., Barbosa, A. V., Vatiokiotis-Bateson, E., Castelhano, M. S. & Munhall, K. G. Movement Coordination during Conversation. PLoS One 9 , e105036 (2014).

Sharon-David, H., Mizrahi, M., Rinott, M., Golland, Y. & Birnbaum, G. E. Being on the same wavelength: Behavioral synchrony between partners and its influence on the experience of intimacy. J. Soc. Personal. Relatsh. 36 , 2983–3008 (2019).

Atzil, S., Hendler, T. & Feldman, R. Specifying the Neurobiological Basis of Human Attachment: Brain, Hormones, and Behavior in Synchronous and Intrusive Mothers. Neuropsychopharmacology 36 , 2603–2615 (2011).

Abu Salih, M. et al. Evidence for cultural differences in affect during mother–infant interactions. Sci. Rep. 13 , 4831 (2023).

Cote, L. R. & Bornstein, M. H. Synchrony in mother-infant vocal interactions revealed through timed event sequences. Infant Behav. Dev. 64 , 101599 (2021).

Waters, S. F. & Mendes, W. B. Physiological and Relational Predictors of Mother-Infant Behavioral Coordination. Adapt. Hum. Behav. Physiol. 2 , 298–310 (2016).

Behrens, F. et al. Physiological synchrony is associated with cooperative success in real-life interactions. Sci. Rep. 10 , 19609 (2020).

Freihart, B. K. & Meston, C. M. Preliminary Evidence for a Relationship Between Physiological Synchrony and Sexual Satisfaction in Opposite-Sex Couples. J. Sex. Med. 16 , 2000–2010 (2019).

Freihart, B., Browman, K. & Meston, C. (077) Physiological Synchrony and Sexual Satisfaction: A Replication and Extension. J. Sex. Med. 20 , qdad061.073 (2023).

Atzil, S. et al. Dopamine in the medial amygdala network mediates human bonding. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114 , 2361–2366 (2017).

Feldman, R. Parent-infant synchrony: A biobehavioral model of mutual influences in the formation of affiliative bonds. Monogr. Soc. Res. Child Dev. 77 , 42–51 (2012).

Bernieri, F. J., Reznick, J. S. & Rosenthal, R. Synchrony, pseudosynchrony, and dissynchrony: Measuring the entrainment process in mother-infant interactions. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 54 , 243–253 (1988).

Feldman, R., Magori-Cohen, R., Galili, G., Singer, M. & Louzoun, Y. Mother and infant coordinate heart rhythms through episodes of interaction synchrony. Infant Behav. Dev. 34 , 569–577 (2011).

Field, T., Healy, B. T., Goldstein, S. & Guthertz, M. Behavior-state matching and synchrony in mother-infant interactions of nondepressed versus depressed dyads. Dev. Psychol. 26 , 7–14 (1990).

Condon, W. S. & Sander, L. W. Neonate Movement Is Synchronized with Adult Speech: Interactional Participation and Language Acquisition. Science 183 , 99–101 (1974).

Condon, W. S. The relation of interactional synchrony to cognitive and emotional processes. In The relationship of verbal and nonverbal communication 49–65 (De Gruyter Mouton, 1980).

Feldman, R., Rosenthal, Z. & Eidelman, A. I. Maternal-Preterm Skin-to-Skin Contact Enhances Child Physiologic Organization and Cognitive Control Across the First 10 Years of Life. Biol. Psychiatry 75 , 56–64 (2014).

Aschersleben, G. Temporal Control of Movements in Sensorimotor Synchronization. Brain Cognition 48 , 66–79 (2002).

Monier, F. & Droit-Volet, S. Development of sensorimotor synchronization abilities: Motor and cognitive components. Child Neuropsychol. 25 , 1043–1062 (2019).

Repp, B. H. Sensorimotor synchronization: A review of the tapping literature. Psychonomic Bull. Rev. 12 , 969–992 (2005).

Repp, B. H. & Su, Y.-H. Sensorimotor synchronization: A review of recent research (2006–2012). Psychon. Bull. Rev. 20 , 403–452 (2013).

Novembre, G., Mitsopoulos, Z. & Keller, P. E. Empathic perspective taking promotes interpersonal coordination through music. Sci. Rep. 9 , 12255 (2019).

Tunçgenç, B., Cohen, E. & Fawcett, C. Rock With Me: The Role of Movement Synchrony in Infants’ Social and Nonsocial Choices. Child Dev. 86 , 976–984 (2015).

Curtindale, L. M., Bahrick, L. E., Lickliter, R. & Colombo, J. Effects of multimodal synchrony on infant attention and heart rate during events with social and nonsocial stimuli. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 178 , 283–294 (2019).

Howard, E. M., Ropar, D., Newport, R. & Tunçgenç, B. Social context facilitates visuomotor synchrony and bonding in children and adults. Sci. Rep. 11 , 22869 (2021).

Vishne, G. et al. Impaired Online Error-Correction Disrupts Synchronization to External Events in Autism. bioRxiv , https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.09.28.316828 (2020).

Borkenau, P., Mauer, N., Riemann, R., Spinath, F. M. & Angleitner, A. Thin Slices of Behavior as Cues of Personality and Intelligence. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 86 , 599–614 (2004).

Kenny, D. A., Horner, C., Kashy, D. A. & Chu, L. Consensus at zero acquaintance: Replication, behavioral cues, and stability. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 62 , 88–97 (1992).

Kramer, R. S., Gottwald, V. M., Dixon, T. A. & Ward, R. Different cues of personality and health from the face and gait of women. Evolut. Psychol. 10 , 147470491201000208 (2012).

Place, S. S., Todd, P. M., Penke, L. & Asendorpf, J. B. Humans show mate copying after observing real mate choices. Evol. Hum. Behav. 31 , 320–325 (2010).

Dawson, M. E., Schell, A. M. & Filion, D. L. The electrodermal system. In Handbook of psychophysiology. (eds Cacioppo, J. T. et al.) (Cambridge University Press, 2017).

Mendes, W. B. Assessing autonomic nervous system activity. Methods Soc. Neurosci. 118 , 21 (2009).

Quigley, K. S. Sympathetic Nervous System. In The Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology (eds. Weiner, I. B. & Craighead, W. E.) 1–2 (Wiley, 2010). https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470479216.corpsy0969 .

Fowles, D. C. et al. Publication Recommendations for Electrodermal Measurements. Psychophysiology 18 , 232–239 (1981).

Lykken, D. T. & Venables, P. H. Direct measurement of skin conductance: a proposal for standardization. Psychophysiology 8 , 656–672 (1971).

Wallin, B. G. Sympathetic Nerve Activity Underlying Electrodermal and Cardiovascular Reactions in Man. Psychophysiology 18 , 470–476 (1981).

Bradley, M. M., Codispoti, M., Cuthbert, B. N. & Lang, P. J. Emotion and motivation I: defensive and appetitive reactions in picture processing. Emotion 1 , 276 (2001).

Dittes, J. E. Galvanic skin response as a measure of patient’s reaction to therapist’s permissiveness. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 55 , 295–303 (1957).

Levenson, R. W. & Gottman, J. M. Marital interaction: Physiological linkage and affective exchange. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 45 , 587–597 (1983).

Curran, M. T., Gordon, J. R., Lin, L., Sridhar, P. K. & Chuang, J. Understanding Digitally-Mediated Empathy: An Exploration of Visual, Narrative, and Biosensory Informational Cues. in Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 1–13 (ACM, Glasgow Scotland Uk, 2019). https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300844 .

De Cecco, M. et al. Augmented reality to enhance the clinician’s observation during assessment of daily living activities. in Augmented Reality, Virtual Reality, and Computer Graphics : 4th International Conference, AVR 2017, Ugento, Italy, June 12-15, 2017, Proceedings, Part II 4 3–21 (Springer, 2017).

Jacob, S., Ishimaru, S. & Dengel, A. Interest Detection While Reading Newspaper Articles by Utilizing a Physiological Sensing Wristband. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM International Joint Conference and 2018 International Symposium on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing and Wearable Computers 78–81 (ACM, Singapore Singapore, 2018). https://doi.org/10.1145/3267305.3267666 .

Menghini, L. et al. Stressing the accuracy: Wrist‐worn wearable sensor validation over different conditions. Psychophysiology 56 , e13441 (2019).

Ollander, S., Godin, C., Campagne, A. & Charbonnier, S. A comparison of wearable and stationary sensors for stress detection. In 2016 IEEE International Conference on systems, man, and Cybernetics (SMC) 004362–004366 (IEEE, 2016).

Van Lier, H. G. et al. A standardized validity assessment protocol for physiological signals from wearable technology: Methodological underpinnings and an application to the E4 biosensor. Behav. Res 52 , 607–629 (2020).

Finkel, E. J., Eastwick, P. W. & Reis, H. T. Best research practices in psychology: Illustrating epistemological and pragmatic considerations with the case of relationship science. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 108 , 275–297 (2015).

Ackerman, R. A., Kashy, D. A. & Corretti, C. A. A tutorial on analyzing data from speed-dating studies with heterosexual dyads: Analyzing speed-dating data. Pers. Relatsh. 22 , 92–110 (2015).

Kenny, D. A. & Kashy, D. A. Dyadic data analysis using multilevel modeling. in Handbook of advanced multilevel analysis 343–378 (Routledge, 2011).

Jeffreys, H. The Theory of Probability (OuP Oxford, 1998).

Pietromonaco, P. R. & Barrett, L. F. Working models of attachment and daily social interactions. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 73 , 1409–1423 (1997).

Ariani, G. & Diedrichsen, J. Sequence learning is driven by improvements in motor planning. J. Neurophysiol. 121 , 2088–2100 (2019).

Ariani, G., Kordjazi, N., Pruszynski, J. A. & Diedrichsen, J. The Planning Horizon for Movement Sequences. eNeuro 8 , ENEURO.0085–21.2021 (2021).

Frith, C. D. & Frith, U. How we predict what other people are going to do. Brain Res. 36 , 46 (2006).

Bar, M. The proactive brain: using analogies and associations to generate predictions. Trends Cogn. Sci. 11 , 280–289 (2007).

Knoblich, G. & Sebanz, N. The Social Nature of Perception and Action. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 15 , 99–104 (2006).

Swanson, H. L. & Malone, S. Social Skills and Learning Disabilities: A Meta-Analysis of the Literature. Sch. Psychol. Rev. 21 , 427–443 (1992).

Broadhead, P. Early Years Play and Learning: Developing Social Skills and Cooperation (Psychology Press, 2004).

Molapour, T. et al. Seven computations of the social brain. Soc. Cognit. Affect. Neurosci. nsab024, https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsab024 (2021).

Olsson, A., Knapska, E. & Lindström, B. The neural and computational systems of social learning. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 21 , 197–212 (2020).

Rolf, M., Hanheide, M. & Rohlfing, K. J. Attention via Synchrony: Making Use of Multimodal Cues in Social Learning. IEEE Trans. Auton. Ment. Dev. 1 , 55–67 (2009).

Hart, Y., Noy, L., Feniger-Schaal, R., Mayo, A. E. & Alon, U. Individuality and Togetherness in Joint Improvised Motion. PLoS One 9 , e87213 (2014).

Feldman, R. Infant-mother and infant-father synchrony: The coregulation of positive arousal. Infant Ment. Health J. 24 , 1–23 (2003).

Atzil, S., Gao, W., Fradkin, I. & Barrett, L. F. Growing a social brain. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2 , 624–636 (2018).

Atzil, S. & Gendron, M. Bio-behavioral synchrony promotes the development of conceptualized emotions. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 17 , 162–169 (2017).

Levin, B. E. Metabolic imprinting: critical impact of the perinatal environment on the regulation of energy homeostasis. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 361 , 1107–1121 (2006).

Arrieta, M.-C., Stiemsma, L. T., Amenyogbe, N., Brown, E. M. & Finlay, B. The Intestinal Microbiome in Early Life: Health and Disease. Front. Immunol . 5 , 427 (2014).

Feldman, R., Greenbaum, C. W. & Yirmiya, N. Mother–infant affect synchrony as an antecedent of the emergence of self-control. Dev. Psychol. 35 , 223–231 (1999).

Pietromonaco, P. R., DeBuse, C. J. & Powers, S. I. Does Attachment Get Under the Skin? Adult Romantic Attachment and Cortisol Responses to Stress. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 22 , 63–68 (2013).

Djerassi, M., Ophir, S. & Atzil, S. What Is Social about Autism? The Role of Allostasis-Driven Learning. Brain Sci. 11 , 1269 (2021).

Ramseyer, F. T. Motion energy analysis (MEA): A primer on the assessment of motion from video. J. Counseling Psychol. 67 , 536–549 (2020).

Cao, Z., Hidalgo, G., Simon, T., Wei, S.-E. & Sheikh, Y. OpenPose: Realtime Multi-Person 2D Pose Estimation Using Part Affinity Fields. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 43 , 172–186 (2021).

Guerrero, L. K. & Wiedmaier, B. 19 Nonverbal intimacy: affectionate communication, positive involvement behavior, and flirtation. In Nonverbal Communication (eds. Hall, J. A. & Knapp, M. L.) 577–612 (DE GRUYTER, 2013). https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110238150.577 .

Grammer, K., Kruck, K. B. & Magnusson, M. S. The courtship dance: Patterns of nonverbal synchronization in opposite-sex encounters. J. Nonverbal Behav. 22 , 3–29 (1998).

Grammer, K., Kruck, K., Juette, A. & Fink, B. Non-verbal behavior as courtship signals: the role of control and choice in selecting partners. Evol. Hum. Behav. 21 , 371–390 (2000).

Grammer, K., Honda, M., Juette, A. & Schmitt, A. Fuzziness of nonverbal courtship communication unblurred by motion energy detection. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 77 , 487–508 (1999).

Chang, A. et al. Body sway predicts romantic interest in speed dating. Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci. 16 , 185–192 (2021).

Cappella, J. N. Behavioral and judged coordination in adult informal social interactions: Vocal and kinesic indicators. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 72 , 119–131 (1997).

Bernieri, F. J. Coordinated movement and rapport in teacher-student interactions. J. Nonverbal Behav. 12 , 120–138 (1988).

Feldman, R. The relational basis of adolescent adjustment: trajectories of mother–child interactive behaviors from infancy to adolescence shape adolescents’ adaptation. Attachment Hum. Dev. 12 , 173–192 (2010).

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Yitzchak Yadegari for the graphic illustrations in Figs.  1 and 4 , and Keren Kasten for the graphic illustration in Fig.  2 . This study was funded by internal funding from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem granted to Dr. Shir Atzil. The funders had no role in planning the study design, collecting the data, performing the data analyses, publishing, or preparing the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel

M. Cohen, M. Abargil, M. Ahissar & S. Atzil

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Matan Cohen- conceptualization, methodology, analysis, investigation, data curation, validation, visualization, writing. Maayan Abargil- methodology, validation. Merav Ahissar- conceptualization, methodology, writing. Shir Atzil- conceptualization, methodology, analysis, writing, funding, supervision.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. Atzil .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information.

Communications Psychology thanks Yuhang Long and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Primary Handling Editors: Yafeng Pan and Jennifer Bellingtier. A peer review file is available.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Peer review file, supplementary information, reporting summary, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Cohen, M., Abargil, M., Ahissar, M. et al. Social and nonsocial synchrony are interrelated and romantically attractive. Commun Psychol 2 , 57 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44271-024-00109-1

Download citation

Received : 21 August 2023

Accepted : 30 May 2024

Published : 10 June 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s44271-024-00109-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

American Psychological Association

Younger workers feel stressed, lonely, and undervalued

Nearly half of workers aged 18–25 say they feel lonely at work, according to APA’s 2024 Work in America survey

U.S. workers adjust to changing nature of employment

Survey highlights include remote work, four-day workweeks, and AI adoption

5 ways to improve employee mental health

Supportive workplace practices can boost employee well-being, company morale

Psychological safety in the changing workplace

Survey shows link with job satisfaction, including creativity and innovation

Membership in APA

APA Community

A new exclusive destination tailored for APA members

Membership benefits

Unlock the tools, discounts, and services included with your membership

Renew your membership

Keep your benefits and access to leading psychological information

Psychology topics spotlight

Misinformation and disinformation

Resources to navigate trauma

Tips to foster a healthy workplace

Science and practice of psychology

Ethics Code

Continuing Education

Grants, Awards, and Funding

Standards and Guidelines

Networks and communities

Network with peers, enhance your professional development, expand your personal growth, and more

APA Divisions

High school teachers

Undergraduate educators

Graduate students

Early career psychologists

Managing your career

Resources to help you throughout your career in psychology, including finding a job, salary data, finances and money management, mentoring and supervision, and training and professional development

Explore career paths

Psychologist profiles

How did you get that job?

Events and training

Featured jobs

Apa publications and products.

Write with clarity, precision, and inclusion

Children’s books

Monitor on Psychology

Newsletters

Reports and surveys

Continuing education

Merchandise

Real Siblings

Jacob's Missing Book

Harper Becomes a Big Sister

Attachment-Based Family Therapy for Sexual and Gender Minority Young Adults and Their Non-Accepting Parents

Dismantling Everyday Discrimination

APA Services

Learn how you can help APA advocate for psychology-informed federal policy and legislation, and support psychological research

APA Services, Inc.

A companion professional organization to APA, serving all members and advocating for psychology

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family 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

The Most Famous Social Psychology Experiments Ever Performed

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

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

Social experiments often seek to answer questions about how people behave in groups or how the presence of others impacts individual behavior. Over the years, social psychologists have explored these questions by conducting experiments .

The results of some of the most famous social psychology experiments remain relevant (and often quite controversial) today. Such experiments give us valuable information about human behavior and how group influence can impact our actions in social situations.

At a Glance

Some of the most famous social psychology experiments include Asch's conformity experiments, Bandura's Bobo doll experiments, the Stanford prison experiment, and Milgram's obedience experiments. Some of these studies are quite controversial for various reasons, including how they were conducted, serious ethical concerns, and what their results suggested.

The Asch Conformity Experiments

What do you do when you know you're right but the rest of the group disagrees with you? Do you bow to group pressure?

In a series of famous experiments conducted during the 1950s, psychologist Solomon Asch demonstrated that people would give the wrong answer on a test to fit in with the rest of the group.

In Asch's famous conformity experiments , people were shown a line and then asked to select a line of a matching length from a group of three. Asch also placed confederates in the group who would intentionally choose the wrong lines.

The results revealed that when other people picked the wrong line, participants were likely to conform and give the same answers as the rest of the group.

What the Results Revealed

While we might like to believe that we would resist group pressure (especially when we know the group is wrong), Asch's results revealed that people are surprisingly susceptible to conformity .

Not only did Asch's experiment teach us a great deal about the power of conformity, but it also inspired a whole host of additional research on how people conform and obey, including Milgram's infamous obedience experiments.

The Bobo Doll Experiment

Does watching violence on television cause children to behave more aggressively? In a series of experiments conducted during the early 1960s, psychologist Albert Bandura set out to investigate the impact of observed aggression on children's behavior.

In his Bobo doll experiments , children would watch an adult interacting with a Bobo doll. In one condition, the adult model behaved passively toward the doll, but in another, the adult would kick, punch, strike, and yell at the doll.

The results revealed that children who watched the adult model behave violently toward the doll were likelier to imitate the aggressive behavior later on.​

The Impact of Bandura's Social Psychology Experiment

The debate over the degree to which violence on television, movies, gaming, and other media influences children's behavior continues to rage on today, so it perhaps comes as no surprise that Bandura's findings are still so relevant.

The experiment has also helped inspire hundreds of additional studies exploring the impacts of observed aggression and violence.

The Stanford Prison Experiment

During the early 1970s, Philip Zimbardo set up a fake prison in the basement of the Stanford Psychology Department, recruited participants to play prisoners and guards, and played the role of the prison warden.

The experiment was designed to look at the effect that a prison environment would have on behavior, but it quickly became one of the most famous and controversial experiments of all time.

Results of the Stanford Prison Experiment

The Stanford prison experiment was initially slated to last a full two weeks. It ended after just six days. Why? Because the participants became so enmeshed in their assumed roles, the guards became almost sadistically abusive, and the prisoners became anxious, depressed, and emotionally disturbed.

While the Stanford prison experiment was designed to look at prison behavior, it has since become an emblem of how powerfully people are influenced by situations.  

Ethical Concerns

Part of the notoriety stems from the study's treatment of the participants. The subjects were placed in a situation that created considerable psychological distress. So much so that the study had to be halted less than halfway through the experiment.

The study has long been upheld as an example of how people yield to the situation, but critics have suggested that the participants' behavior may have been unduly influenced by Zimbardo himself in his capacity as the mock prison's "warden."  

Recent Criticisms

The Stanford prison experiment has long been controversial due to the serious ethical concerns of the research, but more recent evidence casts serious doubts on the study's scientific merits.

An examination of study records indicates participants faked their behavior to either get out of the experiment or "help" prove the researcher's hypothesis. The experimenters also appear to have encouraged certain behaviors to help foster more abusive behavior.

The Milgram Experiments

Following the trial of Adolph Eichmann for war crimes committed during World War II, psychologist Stanley Milgram wanted to better understand why people obey. "Could it be that Eichmann and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders? Could we call them all accomplices?" Milgram wondered.

The results of Milgram's controversial obedience experiments were astonishing and continue to be both thought-provoking and controversial today.

What the Social Psychology Experiment Involved

The study involved ordering participants to deliver increasingly painful shocks to another person. While the victim was simply a confederate pretending to be injured, the participants fully believed that they were giving electrical shocks to the other person.

Even when the victim was protesting or complaining of a heart condition, 65% of the participants continued to deliver painful, possibly fatal shocks on the experimenter's orders.

Obviously, no one wants to believe that they are capable of inflicting pain or torture on another human being simply on the orders of an authority figure. The results of the obedience experiments are disturbing because they reveal that people are much more obedient than they may believe.

Controversy and Recent Criticisms

The study is also controversial because it suffers from ethical concerns, primarily the psychological distress it created for the participants. More recent findings suggest that other problems question the study's findings.

Some participants were coerced into continuing against their wishes. Many participants appeared to have guessed that the learner was faking their responses, and other variations showed that many participants refused to continue the shocks.

What This Means For You

There are many interesting and famous social psychology experiments that can reveal a lot about our understanding of social behavior and influence. However, it is important to be aware of the controversies, limitations, and criticisms of these studies. More recent research may reflect differing results. In some cases, the re-evaluation of classic studies has revealed serious ethical and methodological flaws that call the results into question.

Jeon, HL.  The environmental factor within the Solomon Asch Line Test .  International Journal of Social Science and Humanity.  2014;4(4):264-268. doi:10.7763/IJSSH.2014.V4.360 

Bandura and Bobo . Association for Psychological Science.

Zimbardo, G. The Stanford Prison Experiment: a simulation study on the psychology of imprisonment .

Le Texier T.  Debunking the Stanford Prison Experiment.   Am Psychol.  2019;74(7):823-839. doi:10.1037/amp0000401

Blum B.  The lifespan of a lie .  Medium .

Baker PC. Electric Schlock: Did Stanley Milgram's famous obedience experiments prove anything? Pacific Standard .

Perry G.  Deception and illusion in Milgram's accounts of the obedience experiments .  Theory Appl Ethics . 2013;2(2):79-92.

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

Analytical Methods

Amino acid-stabilized luminescent gold clusters for sensing pterin and its analogues.

Pteridines are important low molecular weight biomarkers used in diagnostics of inflammation, oxidative stress, phenylketonuria, cancer, etc. In this experimental study we present a simple and selective approach to determine pteridines (pterin, leucopterin and folic acid) and nucleobase guanine concentration using luminescent gold clusters stabilized by aromatic amino acids. We synthesized several new gold clusters (AA-Au NCs) stabilized by various aromatic amino acids – 3,4-Dihydroxy-L-phenylalanine (DOPA), L-Tryptophan (Trp), L-Tyrosine (Tyr) and L-Phenylalanine (Phe) emitting in the violet-green spectral range. Their luminescence appeared to be sensitive to the presence of pterin, leucopterin, folic acid and guanine in dependence of the stabilizing matrix. Thus, a facile and cost-effective approach for pteridines detection is proposed. The AA-Au NC-based sensors work according to “turn-off” as well as to “turn-on” mechanisms. The possible physical origins of the luminescent quenching and enhancement are discussed.

Supplementary files

• Supplementary information PDF (5572K)

Article information

Download citation, permissions.

T. S. Sych, N. Shekhovtsov, A. A. Buglak and A. I. Kononov, Anal. Methods , 2024, Accepted Manuscript , DOI: 10.1039/D4AY00700J

To request permission to reproduce material from this article, please go to the Copyright Clearance Center request page .

If you are an author contributing to an RSC publication, you do not need to request permission provided correct acknowledgement is given.

If you are the author of this article, you do not need to request permission to reproduce figures and diagrams provided correct acknowledgement is given. If you want to reproduce the whole article in a third-party publication (excluding your thesis/dissertation for which permission is not required) please go to the Copyright Clearance Center request page .

Read more about how to correctly acknowledge RSC content .

Social activity

Search articles by author.

This article has not yet been cited.

Advertisements