Introduction to Research Methods in Social Psychology

Social Psychology

Social psychology is the scientific study of how people's thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are

influenced by the actual, imagined, or implied presence of others. By this definition, scientific

refers to the empirical method of investigation. The terms thoughts, feelings, and behaviors

include all of the psychological variables that are measurable in a human being. The statement

that others may be imagined or implied suggests that we are prone to social influence even when

no other people are present, such as when watching television, or following internalized cultural

norms.

Social psychologists typically explain human behavior as a result of the interaction of mental

states and immediate social situations. In Kurt Lewin's conceptual formula, behavior can be

viewed as a function of the person in the environment, B = f (P, E). In general, social

psychologists have a preference for laboratory based, empirical findings. Social psychology

theories tend to be specific and focused, rather than global and general. Social psychologists are

interested not only in behavior, but also in feelings, thoughts, beliefs, attitudes, intentions and

goals. These are not directly observable but can, with varying degrees of confidence, be inferred

from behavior and may influence or even determine behavior.

Social psychology is the scientific study of Social Thinking (it includes, how we perceive

ourselves and others, what we believe, judgements we make, and our attitudes), Social Influence

(it includes, culture, pressure to conform, persuasion, group of people etc), Social Relations

(prejudice, aggression, attraction, intimacy, helping behavior etc)

Social Psychology as a Science

Social psychology as a science has the following characteristic:

Accuracy: A dedication to acquiring and analyzing data about the world (including social

behavior) as meticulously, precisely, and flawlessly as is humanly feasible. This implies that any

of us might engage in some casual "people watching" activity at an event with plenty of people

won't fit this definition. Each of us could concentrate on the observations will be imprecise and

have limited applicability; the same "findings" may not hold true when carried out by someone

else obtained.

Objectivity: A commitment to obtaining and evaluating such information in a

manner that is as free from bias as possible. This means that with causal “people

watching” we may evaluate what we see differently than others would, so our

observations lack objectivity.

Skepticism: A commitment to accepting findings as accurate only to the extent they

have been verified over and over again. Here again you should notice the importance of

replication—where different investigators can re-produce the procedure

used by others and arrive at the same conceptual conclusions.

Open Mindedness: Being open-minded means making a commitment to change your opinions,

especially when they are if evidence already in existence indicates that these views are incorrect,

passionately held. Social psychologists have conducted research that has yielded a lot of

surprises,

It has forced us to reevaluate how important groups are to our wellbeing, how many processes

are unconscious, how the way we frame problems can alter our attitudes and preferences, and

why what makes people happy in reality frequently differs from what we think will make them

happy. All of these have proposed reexamining presumptions regarding human nature.

Empiricism: Empiricism is a psychological and philosophical doctrine that examines the

philosophical and psychological aspects of the development and assessment of ideas and

conceptions. Empiricism holds that "there is nothing in the mind except that which proceeds

from the senses; and ideas or propositions are true in so far as they conform to the evidence of

the senses." Empiricism is a more complex epistemological concept that addresses how claims,

propositions, hypotheses, and theories are developed and put to the test in all fields of study,

including math, psychology, social science, history, and others. Social psychology is an

empirical science that attempts to answer a variety of questions about human behavior by testing

hypotheses, both in the laboratory and in the field. Such approach to the field focuses on the

individual, and attempts to explain how the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors of individuals are

influenced by other people.

Social psychology is not common and sense and people cannot completely rely on their intuition

and experiences for drawing out conclusions about a particular behavior. The answer to this is

very simple and straightforward because such sources provide an inconsistent and

unreliable guide to understanding social behavior. This is so because our own experiences are

unique and may not provide a solid foundation for answering general questions. Additionally, as

shown through social psychological study, people frequently are not conscious of the factors that

affect them. People may be able to come up with "theories" about how they are or are not

affected by others, but these views of common sense are sometimes skewed by wishful thinking.

It is also the case that there are widely endorsed ideas about various aspects of

social life that are inconsistent with each other. Only objective research evidence can

provide clear answers about which of such contradictory ideas are true. For instance,

consider the following statement: “Absence makes the heart grow fonder” and “Out of sight is

out of mind”. These are two contradictory and yet we have firm believers of both the notions.

clear: Common sense often suggests a confusing and inconsistent picture of human behavior.

Yet, it can offer intriguing hypotheses that can be tested in controlled research.

Only a scientific approach that examines social thought and behavior in different contexts and

populations can provide that kind of information, and this is one basic reason that social

psychologists put their faith in the scientific method: It yields more conclusive evidence.

Because we are prone to such errors in our thinking about the social world, we cannot rely on

introspecting about the influences on us—or rely on common sense—to solve the mysteries of

social behavior. Rather, we need scientific evidence about what most people do, whether they
realize that they do so or not, and providing such evidence is, in essence, what social psychology

is all about.

Research Methods in Social Psychology

Social psychology employs the scientific method to study social behavior. Science involves the

formulation of hypotheses (predictions) on the basis of prior knowledge, speculation and casual

or systematic observation. Hypotheses are formally stated predictions about what may cause

something to occur; they are stated in such a way that they can be tested empirically to see if

they are true. In order to undertake empirical testing of hypotheses, social psychology has access

to a variety of diverse approaches (Crano & Brewer, 2015). Experimental and non-experimental

methods are the two main categories.

The choice of methods used in social psychology depends on various factors like the hypothesis

that is being tested, resources available for conducting the research and ethics associated with the

particular experiment. A hypothesis's validity is more strongly supported if it has been verified

several times by several research teams using various techniques.

Replication by various research teams helps to minimize the possibility that a finding is an

artefact of a particular methodology, and confirmation bias is prevented when researchers lose

objectivity when interpreting data as a result of becoming too personally invested in their own

theories (Greenwald & Pratkanis, 1988; Johnson & Eagly, 1989).

EXPERIMENTAL METHODS:
An experiment is a test of a hypothesis in which a certain action is taken to determine how it will

affect another. The most significant research strategy in science is systematic experimentation,

which should come as no surprise. In an experiment, one or more independent variables are

intervened with through manipulation, and the effects of that intervention (manipulation) on one

or more focal dependent variables are then measured. Independent variables are attributes that

can be changed and on which the researcher hypothesis an impact. The researcher hypothesis

that dependent variables will change as a result of changing the independent variable. Variation

in the independent variable influences how the dependent variable changes. Social psychology is

largely experimental, in that most social psychologists would prefer to test hypotheses

experimentally if at all possible, and much of what we know about social behavior is based on

experiments.

An experiment in social psychology might be created to examine the claim that watching violent

television leads to more aggressive behavior in young children. One technique to do this is to

randomly divide 20 kids into two groups such that each child watches either a violent or a non-

violent program. Then, you can watch how much aggressiveness the kids display when playing

right afterward. The likelihood of systematic disparities between participants in the two

circumstances is decreased by assigning participants (in this example, children) at random. Any

substantial impacts on aggression might be caused by age, sex, or background rather than the

violence of the television programming if there were any systematic variations, such as in age,

sex, or parental history. That is, age, sex or parental background would be confounded with the

independent variable. Likewise, the television program viewed in each condition should be

identical in all respects except for the degree of violence. For instance, if the violent program
also contained more action, then we would not know whether subsequent differences in

aggression were due to the violence, the action or both. The circumstances surrounding the

viewing of the two programs should also be identical. If the violent programs were viewed in a

bright red room and the non-violent programs in a blue room, then any effects might be due to

room color, violence or both. It is critically important in experiments to avoid confounding: the

conditions must be identical in all respects except for those represented by the manipulated

independent variable

Social psychology generally includes two factor designs as social settings are quite complicated

to understand and limiting the independent variable to just one factor limits the generalizability

of the results and various confounding variables act through it.

There are various types of experimental methods used under social psychology:

1)Laboratory experiments: The traditional social psychology experiment is carried out in a lab

setting to ensure that as many potentially influencing factors are under control. The goal is to

isolate and control a single variable-related element, a component that might not often occur

alone outside of a lab. The purpose of laboratory experiments is to create artificial situations.

Social psychologists are becoming more and more interested in examining the biochemical

correlates, effects, and causes of social conduct, as well as how these factors connect to brain

activity. This has led to the development of a wide range of experimental techniques that make

social psychology labs resemble those in biology or physics more. For instance, a psychologist

examining how social contact can affect our feelings of stress and anxiety might track variations

in the salivary cortisol level (e.g. Blascovich & Seery, 2007; Townsend, Major, Gangi, &
Mendes, 2011). The use of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) in social neuroscience

research has grown in popularity. In order to detect the electro-chemical activity of the brain,

participants are placed within a sizable and incredibly expensive magnetic cylinder (Lieberman,

2010; Todorov, Fiske, & Prentice, 2011)

Laboratory experiments are intentionally low on external validity or mundane realism (i.e.

how similar the conditions are to those usually encountered by participants in the real world) but

should always be high on internal validity or experimental realism (i.e. the manipulations must

be full of psychological impact and meaning for the participants) (Aronson, Ellsworth,

Carlsmith, & Gonzales, 1990). Various biases can affect laboratory investigations. The behavior

of participants might be an artefact of the experiment rather than a spontaneous and natural

reaction to a modification due to subject effects. By carefully avoiding demand features (Orne,

1962), appraisal anxiety, and social desirability (Rosenberg, 1969), artefacts can be reduced.

Demand characteristics are aspects of the experiment that appear to 'demand' a certain reaction;

they provide information about the hypothesis and advise helpful and obedient participants on

how to respond in order to support the hypothesis. Participants are no longer ignorant of or blind

to the experimental hypothesis as a result. There are also experimenter effects. The experimenter

is often aware of the hypothesis and may inadvertently communicate cues that cause participants

to behave in a way that confirms the hypothesis. This can be minimized by a double-blind

procedure, in which the experimenter is unaware of which experimental condition they are

running.
1)Field experiments: Experiments in social psychology can be carried out in more authentic

environments outside of the lab. For instance, we may test the idea that extended eye contact is

uncomfortable and induces "flight" by having an investigator stand at traffic signals and either

intently or calmly gaze at the driver of a car that is stopped at the lights. The speed at which the

car accelerated when the lights changed would be the dependent variable (Ellsworth, Carlsmith,

& Henson, 1972)

Field experiments have high external validity and, as participants are usually completely

unaware that an experiment is taking place, are not reactive (i.e. no demand characteristics are

present). However, there is less control over extraneous variables, random assignment is

sometimes difficult, and it can be difficult to obtain accurate measurements or measurements of

subjective feelings (generally, overt behavior is all that can be measured)

NON-EXPERIMENTAL METHODS:

Experimental methods are often equated with science but there are some phenomena where one

cannot use scientific experiments to manipulate the variables. For example: In a social

psychology experiment one has to measure relationship between biological sex and decision-

making process where biological sex cannot be manipulated experimentally. Where

experimentation is not possible or appropriate, social psychologists have a range of non-

experimental methods from which to choose. Because these methods do not involve the

manipulation of independent variables against a background of random assignment to condition,

it is almost impossible to draw reliable causal conclusions. For instance, we could compare the
self-esteem of people who have been victims of violent crime with those who have not. Any

differences could be attributed to violent crime but could also be due to other uncontrolled

differences between the two groups. We can only conclude that there is a correlation between

self-esteem and being the victim of violent crime.

Types of Non-Experimental methods are:

1)Archival Research: Archival research is a non-experimental technique that can be helpful for

examining widespread, large-scale events that may have occurred in the past. The researcher

compiles information gathered by others, frequently for purposes unrelated to his or her own. For

instance, Janis (1972) shown via an archival technique that overly cohesive government

decision-making committees may embrace faulty decision-making processes (also known as

"groupthink") On the basis of an assessment of biographical, autobiographical, and media reports

of the decision-making processes connected to, for instance, the 1961 Bay of Pigs incident, in

which the United States unsuccessfully attempted to invade Cuba, Janis developed his theory.

Archival approaches are frequently used to compare behaviors such as suicide, mental health, or

parenting styles across cultures or countries. Because the researcher typically has little influence

over the primary data collection, which may be biased or faulty in other ways (such as missing

crucial data), archival research is not reactive, but it can also be unreliable. The researcher must

use what is available.

2)Case Studies: An in-depth examination of a single instance (either a person or a group) or a

single event is possible with the help of a case study. A variety of data collecting and analysis

approaches, including structured, open-ended interviews, questionnaires, and behavioral

observation, are frequently used in case studies. Case studies are ideal for examining uncommon

or rare occurrences that cannot be produced in a lab, such as odd cults, mass murders, or natural

disasters. Case studies are helpful for generating hypotheses, but results may be biased by the

researcher or the subject (the researcher is not unaware of the hypothesis, there are demand

factors, and participants experience evaluation apprehension), and they may also be difficult to

extrapolate to other cases or events.

3)Survey Research: Data collecting using surveys is another non-experimental technique. In

surveys, participants may fill out a questionnaire or participate in organized interviews, during

which the researcher asks participants a series of pointed questions and records their answers. In

either scenario, the questions can be closed-ended (where there are only a few predetermined

options, such circling a number on a nine-point scale) or open-ended (where respondents can

give as much or as little detail in their answers as they choose). For instance, to investigate

immigrant workers’ experiences of prejudice, one could ask respondents a set of predetermined

questions and summarize the gist of their responses or assign a numerical value to their

responses. Alternatively, respondents could record their own responses by writing a paragraph or

by circling numbers on scales in a questionnaire.

Generalization is frequently not a problem in surveys because a big sample of participants can

yield a great amount of data. However, this method is vulnerable to researcher bias, subject

prejudice, and evaluation apprehension, much like case studies and qualitative methods are.

Surveys that are anonymous and confidential may reduce subject bias, experimenter bias, and

evaluation anxiety, although demand characteristics may still exist. Additionally, poorly

designed questionnaires may yield biased results due to the "response set," or the propensity for

certain respondents to irrationally agree with claims or select middle or extreme responses.

4)Qualitative research and discourse analysis: A variety of non-experimental approaches that

investigate mostly naturally occurring behaviors in considerable detail are closely related to case

studies. These include techniques that carefully dissect discourse—what people say and to whom

and in what circumstances—in order to pinpoint the underlying story that might show what

individuals are thinking, what drives them, and what the discourse is meant to accomplish.

Discourse analysis (Augoustinos & Tileaga, 2012; Edwards, 1997; Potter & Wetherell, 1987;

Wetherell, Taylor, & Yates, 2001) is frequently based in a generally critical orientation towards

mainstream social psychology (cf. Billig, 2008). It draws on literary criticism and the idea that

language is a performance. Discourse analysis is both a language-based and communication-

based methodology and approach to social psychology that has proven particularly useful in a

number of areas, including the study of prejudice (e.g. Van Dijk, 1987; Verkuyten, 2010)

5)Field Studies: Field studies entail observing, documenting, and coding conduct in real-world

settings. Most of the time, the observer is non-intrusive because they are not engaging in the

conduct, and they are 'invisible' because they are not changing the behavior that is already taking
place. For instance, by hiding in a corner and watching what happens, one could study the

behaviors of students in the student cafeteria. When 'invisibility' is not possible, the researcher

can fully engage in the behavior as a participant in order to observe it. For instance, it would be

challenging to witness gang conduct while remaining invisible. Instead, you may fully integrate

into a street gang and covertly take notes to analyze the behaviors of the group (Whyte, 1943).

However, due to the researcher's influence on the behavior being studied, field studies are

particularly vulnerable to experimenter bias, lack of objectivity, low generalizability, and

distortions. Field studies are therefore good for examining spontaneously occurring behavior in

its natural setting.

6)Correlational Studies: Finding and testing hypotheses concerning the links between two or

more variables is the aim of correlational research. The correlation is just between two variables

in the simplest example, such as that between likeness and liking, or between assisting and

gender (male vs. female). The relationship (or correlation) between the variables being measured

is the study hypothesis in a correlational design. For instance, a number of scholars have looked

into the possibility that there is a link between the use of violent video games and the prevalence

of aggressive behaviour, suggesting that those who play these games more frequently will also

act aggressively. 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).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.

Correlational research designs have the advantage that they are frequently used to study people

doing the things that they do every day, similar to observational research (and in contrast to

experimental research designs where the researcher frequently creates relatively artificial

situations in a laboratory setting). Additionally, the ability to forecast is another benefit of

correlational study designs.

When two or more variables are correlated, it is possible to forecast a person's likely score on

another measure using knowledge of the person's performance on one of the linked variables.

Correlational designs have a very significant constraint despite their benefits.

This restriction is the inability to use them to derive conclusions about the causal links between

the measured variables. It's not always clear if one variable triggered the other when there is a

correlation between two other factors. Although numerous studies have discovered a link

between the prevalence of violent video game play and the prevalence of aggressive behaviours,

this does not necessarily imply that playing the violent video games was the direct cause of the

aggressiveness. Although it's possible that playing violent games makes people more aggressive.

. Common-causal variables usually referred to as third variables, are factors that do not directly

contribute to the study question but yet influence both the predictor and the outcome variable,

resulting in the observed connection between them. Correlational research designs must
constantly take the possibility of common-causal variables into account. For instance, it's

conceivable that a participant in a study that links playing violent video games to aggressiveness

The association is being produced by an underlying shared cause. Among the potential causes

are the children's hormone levels, nutrition, and family history. The observed correlation could

be caused by any or all of these putative common-causal factors.

Research Ethics
Applying fundamental ethical concepts to research activities, such as the planning and carrying

out of research, respect for society and other people, the use of resources and research outputs,

scientific misconduct, and the regulation of research, is known as research ethics. Social

psychologists face significant ethical challenges in their work as researchers. Faking data or

reporting results in a way that dramatically distorts what was done, what was discovered, and

how the hypotheses and theory under consideration currently fare is obviously unethical.

Like everything else in life, cheating by scientists not only hinders advancements in the field and

harms its reputation, but it also has terrible effects on participants' careers and quality of lives.

The psychology and biomedical disciplines agree that cheating is extremely uncommon (Stroebe,

Postmes, & Spears, 2012). The fact that social psychology research is generally team-based helps

keep scientists from taking, to put it euphemistically, scientific shortcuts when they are all under

great pressure to publish.

The American Psychological Association created a set of ethical guidelines for conducting

human subjects research in 1972. These guidelines were amended and updated in 2002
(American Psychological Association, 2002). The ethics codes of national society of psychology

in Europe are based on these values. A university or departmental research ethics committee

must formally approve any studies that are planned with these standards in mind. The following

five moral tenets have drawn the greatest attention: debriefing, deception, informed consent, and

protection from damage.

1)PHYSICAL WELFARE OF PARTICIPANTS:

Exposing individuals to physical injury is certainly unethical. For instance, it would be

challenging to defend the use of electric shocks that result in obvious burning. However, it is

frequently difficult to determine whether there is non-trivial harm present, how significant it is,

and whether debriefing addresses it. For instance, it may be damaging to inform experimental

participants that they performed poorly on a word-association test because it may have long-term

repercussions on self-esteem. However, they might be so slight and fleeting as to be

inconsequential.

2)RESPECT FOR PRIVACY:

Privacy invasion is frequently involved in social psychology research. Participants may be

subjected to intrusive questions, covert observation, and manipulation of their moods,

perceptions, and behaviors. Determining whether a study topic justifies a privacy infringement

can be challenging. Other times, it is more obvious; for instance, research into behaviors that

may put people at risk of contracting HIV and developing AIDS requires intimate questions
about sexual practices. Concerns about privacy are typically allayed by making sure that

information received from people is completely confidential, meaning that only the researcher is

aware of what was said or done. Personal identification is removed from data (rendering them

anonymous), research findings are reported as means for large groups of people, and data no

longer useful are usually destroyed

3)USE OF DECEPTION:

Deception is when a researcher gives false information to subjects or intentionally misleads them

about some key aspect of the research. This could include feedback to subjects that involves

creating false beliefs about oneself, one’s relationship, or manipulation of one’s self-concept.

Incomplete Disclosure is a type of deception that involves withholding some information about

the real purpose of the study, or the nature of the research procedures. Because participants must

be uninformed about hypotheses, experimenters frequently keep the true goal of the study a

secret. Often, some degree of deception is required. According to Adair, Dushenko, and Lindsay

(1985) and Gross & Fleming (1982), between 50 and 75 percent of experiments that were

published before the middle of the 1980s featured some form of deceit. Social Psychology as a

field has used deception in some of its classical experiments.

4)INFORMED CONSENT:

People should, in theory, be completely free to participate in research without incurring any

consequences, and they should be able to withdraw from it at any time without incurring any
penalties (ideally in writing). Researchers are not allowed to use deception or withholding of

information to coerce participants into taking part, nor are they permitted to make it "difficult"

for participants to decline or withdraw (for example, through the use of institutionalized or

personal authority or social pressure).

5)DEBRIEFING:

Debriefing is intended to ensure that participants leave the lab with a greater appreciation and

comprehension of social psychology. Debriefing, in this context, entails a thorough explanation

of the experiment and its larger theoretical and applied context. All participants are satisfied with

the explanations and justifications provided for any deceptions, and care is made to ensure that

any manipulations' effects have been neutralized. Strong opponents of deception, however (such

as Baumrind, 1985), contend that no amount of debriefing can make up for what they see as the

fundamental error of deception that weakens even basic human trust.

Classical Experiments in Social Psychology:

There are various known psychologists in the field of social psychology and their experiments

are listed below:

1)ASCH’S CONFORMITY EXPERIMENT:

Solomon Asch studied social conformity and the power of influence that groups have on

individuals. Asch was a social psychologist and is credited for the Asch Conformity

Experiments, also known as the Asch Paradigm. Asch's line experiment involved subjects and

confederates. A confederate is somebody who is secretly working with the researcher. A small

group including a subject and several confederates were shown two cards. The first card had a

single line on it, called the reference line. The second card had three lines of varying lengths, and

these were called the comparison lines. The subject was told they were participating in a vision

test and asked to compare, out loud, the lengths of the reference line to the comparison lines. In

some cases, confederates were prompted to provide incorrect evaluations, stating that the

reference line was longer or shorter than one of the comparison lines, even when it was not. They

were instructed to provide this incorrect evaluation before the subject was asked to share their

evaluation.

Asch found that when multiple confederates provided incorrect evaluations, the subject also

provided at least one incorrect evaluation 75 percent of the time. In comparison, with reference

to the control groups (with confederates providing correct evaluations), only one subject out of

35 provided an incorrect evaluation. Asch initially hypothesized that the majority of subjects

would not be influenced by others' evaluations when those evaluations were so obviously

incorrect. However, what he found was that the power of social conformity is quite strong and

influential at a significant level. Specifically, Asch found that most people believe the majority is

right, even when their own eyes tell them otherwise.

2)FESTINGER’S EXPERIMENT ON COGNITIVE DISSONANCE :

Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) investigated if making people perform a dull task would create

cognitive dissonance through forced compliance behavior. In their laboratory experiment, they

used 71 male students as participants to perform a series of dull tasks (such as turning pegs in a

peg board for an hour). They were then paid either $1 or $20 to tell a waiting participant (a

confederate) that the tasks were really interesting. Almost all of the participants agreed to walk

into the waiting room and persuade the confederate that the boring experiment would be fun.

When the participants were asked to evaluate the experiment, the participants who were paid

only $1 rated the tedious task as more fun and enjoyable than the participants who were paid $20

to lie. Being paid only $1 is not sufficient incentive for lying and so those who were paid $1

experienced dissonance. They could only overcome that dissonance by coming to believe that the

tasks really were interesting and enjoyable. Being paid $20 provides a reason for turning pegs,

and there is, therefore, no dissonance.

3)TAJFEL’S EXPERIMENT ON INTERGROUP DYNAMICS :

The aim of Tajfel’s study was to demonstrate that merely putting people into groups

(categorisation) is sufficient for people to discriminate in favour of their own group and against

members of the other group. The study consisted of two laboratory experiments. The

independent variable was the type of allocation they were asked to make and the dependent

variable was the choices they made (either being fair or showing discrimination)

The First Experiment (under-estimators and over-estimators)

The subjects were 64 boys, 14 and 15 years old from a comprehensive school in a suburb of

Bristol. The subjects came to the laboratory in separate groups of 8. All of the boys in each of

the groups were from the same house in the same form at the school, so that they knew each

other well before the experiment. The first part of the experiment served to establish an
intergroup categorisation. At first the boys were brought together in a lecture room and were told

that the experimenters were interested in the study of visual judgements. Forty clusters of

varying numbers of dots were flashed on a screen and the boys were asked to record each

estimate in succession on prepared score sheets. There were two conditions in the first part of the

experiment. In one condition, after the boys had completed their estimates they were told that in

judgements of this kind some people consistently overestimate the number of dots and some

consistently underestimate the number, but that these tendencies are in no way related to

accuracy. (‘under-estimators, over-estimators’ condition). In the other condition the boys were

told that some people are consistently more accurate than others. (‘better’ - ‘worse’ condition).

Four groups of 8 served in each of the two conditions. After the judgements had been made and

scored by the experimenter the boys were told that they were going to be grouped on the basis of

the visual judgements they had just made. The subjects were actually assigned to groups at

random. The second part of the experiment aimed to assess the effects of categorisation on

intergroup behaviour. The subjects were taken to separate cubicles and told which group they

were in. The students were given a booklet of matrices and told that the task would consist of

giving to others rewards and penalties in real money. The boys would not know the identity of

the individuals to whom they would be assigning these rewards and penalties since everyone

would be given a code number. The value of each point they were rewarding was a tenth of a

penny. Each row of the matrix was labelled “These are reward and penalties for member no. .....

of your group” or “..... of the other group”. The subjects had to indicate their choices by ticking

one box in each matrix.

The boys were required to make three types of choices.

1. There were in-group choices, where both the top and bottom rows referred to members of

the same group as the boy. (other than himself)

2. There were out-group choices, with both the top and bottom row referred to members of the

different group from the boy.

3. There were intergroup choices, where one row referred to the boys’ own group and one row

referred to the other group.

The important choice for Tajfel is the intergroup choice.

The Second Experiment (aesthetic preference)

The second experiment was very similar to the first. 48 new boys were used as subjects and all

the subjects knew each other well. The experiment differed in two ways. The boys were shown

slides of paintings by Paul Klee and Wassily Kandinsky, which were shown without the painter’s

signature and were asked to express their preferences. Half of the subjects were assigned at

random to the ‘Klee group’ and half to the ‘Kandinsky group’. The other major difference was in

the type of matrices used. In this experiment, matrices were employed which allowed the

experimenters to investigate three variables. The three variables were:

1. Maximum joint profit - where boys could give the largest reward to members of both

groups;

2. Largest possible reward to in-group - where the boys could choose the largest reward for

the member of their own group regardless of the reward to the boy from the other group;

3. Maximum difference - where boys could choose the largest possible difference in reward

between members of the different groups (in favour of the in-group)

Maximum joint profit and giving the largest reward to the in-group would both be achieved by

choosing the last pair in the row, giving 19 to a member of your own group, and 25 to a member

of the other group. However, to maximise your own rewards while also maximising the

difference, you might well choose one of the middle boxes and give 12 to a member of your own

group and 11 to a member of the other group. The experiments carried out by Tajfel clearly

demonstrate that inter-group discrimination is easy to trigger off. Tajfel demonstrates that the

very act of categorisation into groups is enough to produce conflict and discrimination. In

making their intergroup choices a large majority of the subjects, in all groups in both conditions,

gave more money to members of their own group than to members of the other

group. Intergroup discrimination was the strategy used in making intergroup choices. In contrast

the in-group and out-group choices were closely distributed around the point of fairness. The

second experiment also clearly demonstrated that the most important factor in making their

choices was maximising the differences between the two groups

4)MILGRAM’S OBEDIENCE EXPERIMENT:

After Adolph Eichmann was found guilty of war crimes during World War II, psychologist

Stanley Milgram sought to understand why people obey. wondered. His infamous obedience

tests produced nothing short of astounding results that are still debatable and thought-provoking

today. Participants were given instructions to administer increasingly severe shocks to a study

subject. The victim was really a confederate who pretended to be hurt, but the participants were

certain they were shocking the other person. 65% of the volunteers continued to administer

unpleasant, potentially lethal shocks to the victim despite their protests or complaints of a cardiac

issue. Naturally, no one wants to think that they are capable of torturing or inflicting suffering on
another person only at the direction of a higher authority. Because they show that people are

considerably more obedient than they might think, the results of the obedience experiments are

unsettling. The study is also debatable due to ethical issues, including the psychological suffering

it caused for the volunteers

5)ROBBER’S CAVE EXPERIMENT:

In 1954, Sherif and his wife, psychologist Carolyn Wood Sherif, conducted a study focused on

intergroup behavior. The study, known as the Robbers Cave Experiment, involved studying 22

eleven- and twelve-year-old boys who believed they were at a summer camp in Robbers Cave

State Park in Oklahoma. The camp was actually a social psychological experiment on group

cooperation and intergroup conflict. When the boys, who had never met each other prior to the

camp, arrived at the Robbers Cave Park, they were randomly assigned to one of two groups.

Each group had its own living quarters and each member of the group was unaware of the

presence of the other group, who were living further away. The boys, all of whom were white

and from suburban middle-class families, quickly developed friendships within their group, and a

cohesive group bond was formed.

In the second phase of the experiment, the groups were introduced to each other and began

participating in a series of competitions where the winning group would receive a prize of value.

Quickly, the two groups began to see the other in negative terms, and often jeered, taunted, and

booed their competitors. This soon escalated into physical confrontations, such as ransacking of

the other group's cabin and theft of personal property.

After a two-day cooling-off period, researchers asked the boys to list the characteristics of the

two groups. Individuals rated their groups in favorable terms and as superior to the other group

and reviewed the other group in much more negative terms.

Before the experiment was over, Sherif wanted to see if superordinate goals would help alleviate

hostility each group had towards the other. A superordinate goal is achieved through a task that

needed to be done for the benefit of both groups. That is, both groups would need to work

cooperatively together. In the experiment, the researchers required the boys to all help move a

stalled truck to a designated location.

The Robbers Cave Experiment demonstrates the presence of intergroup conflict as theorized in

the realistic conflict theory. This theory, also abbreviated as RTC, posits that intergroup hostility

can and often does arise when there exists conflicting goals and competition over a scarce

quantity of resources. In the experiment, Sherif had succeeded in creating hostility and prejudice

among the boys against the boys of the other group. He also demonstrated that, through

collaboration and the pursuit of achieving superordinate goals, one can reduce tension and

prejudice held against an outgroup.

Contemporary Studies in Social Psychology:

1)DRIVERS OF PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOUR: EXPLORING THE ROLE OF MINDSET AND

PERCEIVED

According to earlier studies, activating an abstract mindset rather than a concrete one results in

more prosocial activity. In addition to examining this connection, it was also investigated how

perceived cost functions as a mediator between mentality and prosocial activity.

link. Participants completed mindset activation exercises and graded their prosociality and

perceived cost. Results showed that while perceived cost was inversely connected to prosocial

activity, it did not mediate the mindset-prosocial behaviour link, confirming the previous

findings that an abstract mentality promoted prosocial behaviour.

2) COGNITIVE DISSONANCE AND DEPRESSION

This qualitative investigation aims to determine whether dissonance theory is useful for

enhancing our understanding of the depressed experience. A total of 30 people participated in

semi-structured interviews, 15 of whom had been diagnosed with depression (DD) and a control

group of the same size (ND) who had never had depression. A substantial difference in

depression scores across groups was confirmed by responses to a depression scale (CESD-10).

Utilising template analysis, the interviews were examined. The results showed that people with

depression reported more incisive life experiences that caused discord, more extended

unresolved dissonance, less variety in cognitive efforts to lessen dissonance, and more

ruminating than participants without depression. It was determined that dissonance theory offers

a model for explaining depressive symptoms and may guide the development of future therapies.

3) PARENTAL REJECTION AND PEER ACCEPTANCE

Understanding the factors that affect peer attachments is crucial. Researchers investigated the

contributions of cognitive bias and emotional dysregulation in the link between parental rejection

and peer acceptance using the organizational/transactional paradigm. young adult participants

shared their memories of parental acceptance or rejection as children as well as their current

levels of social, emotional, and cognitive health. The findings support previous research showing
that psychological functioning, such as the capacity to control one's emotions, comprehend the

emotions and intentions of others, and build strong relationships, is related to the quality of a

parent-child relationship. Maladaptive beliefs, however, moderate the connection between

parental and peer acceptance.

4) GENDER DIFFERENCES IN SUPPORT FOR COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENT

This study examines whether the observer's gender has an impact on their support for collective

punishment—that is, punishing the entire group for an offence committed by just one or a small

number of group members—and whether this effect is influenced by their mindset regarding the

malleability of groups. When a fixed perspective is prominent, men are predicted to support

collective punishment more than women, but not when a malleable mindset is prominent.

This theory is supported by the findings of two studies that used various samples and situations

to either evaluate (Study 1: In the first study, we tested our main hypothesis on a situation in

which participants were relatively involved in an intractable (or protracted) conflict). The study

focused on the Israel-Palestinian conflict and an event that occurred in the aftermath of a clash

between the two national entities) or experimentally change (Study 2: In this study we introduced

the following three methodological changes from Study 1: Researchers used a different scenario,

they recruited participants who were not personally involved (i.e., a third-person perspective),

and they experimentally manipulated the malleability mindset of groups.) the attitude.

5) INGROUP BIAS IN THE CONTEXT OF MEAT CONSUMPTION.

An overall result of group assessments is ingroup bias. However, because consuming meat is a

contentious behaviour, it was anticipated that mindful meat eaters (flexitarians) will not exhibit
ingroup prejudice, in contrast to vegetarians and meat lovers. The positive focused Brief Implicit

Association Test was used to assess the direct and implicit attitudes of flexitarians (n = 43),

vegetarians (n = 33), and meat-eaters (n = 22) towards meat-eaters and vegetarians in order to

test this hypothesis. The findings confirm that there is no ingroup prejudice for flexitarians and

there is ingroup bias for vegetarians. Surprisingly, there was no ingroup bias among the meat

eaters. Lack of ingroup bias could make cognitive dissonance worse.

References
 Baron, R.A., Byrne, D. & Bhardwaj, G. (2010). Social Psychology (12th Ed.). New

Delhi: Pearson.

 Branscombe, N.R., Baron, R.A., Baumeister, R.F., & Kapur, P. (2019). Social

Psychology, 14th Ed. New Delhi: Pearson.

 Baumeister, R.F. & Bushman, B.J. (2018). Social Psychology and Human Nature. New

Delhi: Cengage Learning.

 De Vries Jan, 2023. "Cognitive Dissonance And Depression: A Qualitative Exploration

Of A Close Relationship." Current Research in Social Psychology 2:15-

22 https://crisp.org.uiowa.edu

 Don Confino, 2023. " Gender Differences In Support For Collective Punishment: The

Moderating Role Of Malleability Mindset." Current Research in Social Psychology 2:15-

22 https://crisp.org.uiowa.edu

 Emig Yvonne, 2021. " Ingroup Bias In The Context Of Meat Consumption. Direct And

Indirect Attitudes Toward Meat-Eaters And Vegetarians." Current Research in Social

Psychology 2:15-22 https://crisp.org.uiowa.edu

 Franzoi, S.L. (2009). Social Psychology (5th Ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

 Hodges Jessica, 2020. " Parental Rejection And Peer Acceptance: The Mediating Role Of

Cognitive Bias." Current Research in Social Psychology 2:15-

22 https://crisp.org.uiowa.edu

 Hogg, M. &Vaughan, G.M. (2008). Social Psychology. Upper Saddle Rives, New Jersey:

Prentice Hall.

 Taylor, S.E., Peplau, L.A. & Sears, D.O. (2006). Social Psychology (12th Ed.).New

Delhi: Pearson.