social psychology research questions examples

11 social psychology research topics to explore in 2024

Last updated

6 March 2024

Reviewed by

Miroslav Damyanov

Social psychology is a constantly evolving field of study. It explores how our environment and other people influence our thoughts, feelings, beliefs, and goals. Social psychology uncovers how social interaction, perception, and influence impact individuals and groups.

Taking a specific path to follow your interests and learn more about available areas can narrow your focus to find the ideal research project.

Let’s take a look at current topics in social psychology to inspire your research.

Understanding social psychology research

Psychologists conduct experiments to better understand how different environmental factors and the influence of other people shape feelings and behaviors.

Research projects explore various topics, from how a position of power can change behavior to the impact of positive social interactions.

Various research designs allow researchers to develop projects that range from observational to experimental.

What is an example of social psychology research?

Zimbardo randomly assigned college students the roles of prison guards or prisoners in a simulated prison environment. Despite knowing their roles were random, the guards exhibited increasing cruelty towards the prisoners.

Researchers halted the study after six days due to extreme psychological distress. It revealed the profound impact of social roles and situations on human behavior, highlighting how people can adopt negative behaviors when given authority, even in a controlled setting.

How to choose social psychology research topics

Social psychology is a diverse, highly studied area of science, so developing a unique project on a relevant topic can be challenging.

When choosing a subject, begin by exploring your interests. After considering questions you'd like answers to and topics that intrigue you, narrow your scope. Explore specific areas of research, research designs, and subtopics.

Once you've narrowed down your choices, seek literature and past studies on the subject. Consider how past research can raise additional questions about the topic.

Develop your ideas by determining how to measure and test your research questions.

Once you have a firm plan for your project, talk to your instructor for advice and approval before launching your studies.

Social psychology research topics

Social psychology has many nuances that influence human beliefs and behavior. Various elements of situations and relationships affect short- and long-term emotions and actions.

The major research areas in social psychology are an ideal starting point to investigate as part of a psychology research project.

These key focus areas within social psychology can be compelling psychology research topics:

1. Attitudes and attitude change

Research projects surrounding attitudes generally examine the components of attitudes and how they develop and can be changed.

The three components of attitude are affective, behavioral, and cognitive. They’re also known as the ABCs.

We form attitudes through a combination of upbringing, experience, and genetics. People can self-measure them in surveys or through researchers’ observations.

Attitudes can change due to influence and environmental factors. They hugely affect human behavior, making them an important research topic in social psychology.

2. Attachment and relationships

Social connections shape our lives from the earliest moments, taking various forms that significantly impact our well-being. These connections have numerous advantages, such as heightened happiness and satisfaction.

Social psychology explores these connections, examining diverse attachment styles to explain love, friendship, and attraction.

Research in this domain investigates the repercussions of poorly formed social bonds and seeks to answer questions about how relationships influence group behavior.

Additionally, studies in social psychology dissect the elements contributing to attraction, shedding light on the intricate dynamics that shape our social bonds and interactions.

3. Authority and leadership

As revealed in the Stanford Experiment, authority can directly affect behavior.

However, social psychology can further delve into the dynamics of people interacting with those in leadership roles.

Milgram's Obedience to Authority study exemplifies this exploration. Stanley Milgram wanted to investigate how easily authority figures could influence people to commit atrocities.

In this study, participants assumed the role of teachers administering electric shocks to learners for incorrect answers. 65% delivered 450 volts of electricity under the directive of an authority figure.

Research can consider the positive or negative elements of authority based on specific applications, settings, and environments.

For example, we might consider obedience to authority positive in the workplace or classroom.

Social psychology research about groups delves into how behavior changes in group settings.

Groups form for various reasons, and everything from leadership to group dynamics can impact how people behave. These behavioral changes can be beneficial or harmful.

Research into group behavior can focus on decision-making, internal conflicts, conflicts with other groups, how groups affect individual identities, and much more.

Studies can also investigate how positive group behaviors can influence someone.

5. Prejudice

Prejudice and discrimination take different forms, which people may not be aware of. The origin and consequences of prejudice present many topics of study for researchers.

Topics related to how prejudices form and why people maintain inaccurate stereotypes can uncover why people depend on stereotypes to make decisions.

Many studies focus on the effects of discrimination and how to reduce prejudice.

Research in this category can overlap with many other categories. For instance, group behavior and social influences can contribute to the formation of stereotypes and social categorization.

6. Self and social identity

Many elements form the human perception of self. How we perceive ourselves may be substantially different from the viewpoint of others.

Social psychologists are interested in learning how a person’s self-perception can influence factors like behavior and internal feelings like confidence.

Our concept of self derives from various sources, such as abilities, social comparisons, interactions with others, and status.

Researching how the perception of the inner self impacts social behaviors can unveil how social factors influence critical feelings like self-esteem.

7. Pro- and anti-social behavior

How people’s social surroundings impact the way they respond to certain situations is defined as pro- or anti-social behavior.

Positive and negative behaviors are based on accepted social norms. How someone responds during a specific event can reinforce or undermine those norms.

For example, helping a stranger is prosocial, while vandalism is antisocial behavior.

Studies have shown that prosocial behavior is contagious: Those who experience or observe it are more likely to help others.

Antisocial behavior can have a similar effect but in a negative direction. Observing seemingly harmless acts, like littering and graffiti, can weaken social norms. This potentially invites more dangerous antisocial behavior.

Researchers can elaborate on this knowledge to consider why people help others without considering personal costs. They can also dig into what deters someone from taking an action they know is "the right thing to do."

Exploring how society impacts positive and negative behaviors can shed light on ways to reduce negative behavior.

8. Social influence

Persuasion, peer pressure, obedience, and conformity are all forms of social influence. Like other areas of social psychology, these influences can be positive or negative.

One of the earliest studies on social influence was Soloman Asch’s Conformity Line Experiment .

Researchers put a participant in a test with seven conformists without knowing the conformists weren't true participants. Researchers asked them to compare the image of a target line with lines A, B, and C on another image.

Early in the experiment, all conformists answered correctly, followed by the participant, who was always last.

After a few rounds, the conformists began to provide wrong answers unanimously. On average, about a third of participants followed along with conformists to confirm clearly incorrect answers. 75% of participants confirmed at least one wrong answer.

The control group had no conformists. Less than 1% of participants gave the wrong answer.

Doctor and author Robert Cialdini takes the concept of influence further. He identified six universal principles of influence and persuasion to help people defend against dishonest influences.

His studies conclude that these influences can sway people:

Reciprocation: The feeling we should repay what someone has provided

Social proof: When unsure about a decision, we follow the actions of others

Liking: We generally agree with people we like and want them to agree with us

Authority: We are more likely to say yes to authority figures

Scarcity: We want more of what is less available

Commitment and consistency: Once we make a choice, we follow it with corresponding actions to justify the decision (even if we no longer believe in the choice)

Researchers can study how social influence guides the decision-making process and explore the positive and negative effects of conformity. Other experiments can explore the consequences of peer pressure and whether it can be beneficial.

9. Social cognition

In the most basic sense, cognition is the brain gathering and understanding knowledge through sensations, thoughts, and experiences. It allows us to make sense of new information.

Social cognition is how the brain processes information about individuals and groups of people. It includes the role of heuristics . These mental shortcuts enable us to function without constantly stopping to interpret everything in the environment.

Research under the umbrella of social cognition can explore first impressions, how appearance affects our judgment, and how social interactions affect behavior.

These studies can help psychologists understand how someone’s perception of social norms affects their self-image and behavior.

10. Violence and aggression

Exploration into violence and aggression attempts to better understand the factors and situations that cause aggression and how it impacts behaviors.

Several types of aggressive behavior exist, ranging from gossiping to physical violence. Studies in this area examine the different types of aggression and the variables contributing to aggressive behavior.

For instance, a pattern of aggression may relate to witnessing the behavior of a family member or traumatic experiences. Conversely, situational variables may trigger a single incidence of aggression.

A greater understanding of the role of social learning in aggressive behavior can lead to research about how social norms and public policy can decrease violent behavior.

Learning more about the variables contributing to aggression and violence means researchers can use new knowledge to work toward solutions.

11. Social representations

Social representations are a form of heuristics: a set of beliefs that make something unfamiliar easily understood. They allow people to apply specific bits of evidence-based data to individuals’ or groups’ actions to make ideas more familiar.

Researchers may study the role of social representations in making new psychological or scientific information accessible to the average person. Studies may explore how we make sense of new information and how people organize and separate facts for rapid learning.

Get started today

Go from raw data to valuable insights with a flexible research platform

Editor’s picks

Last updated: 21 December 2023

Last updated: 16 December 2023

Last updated: 6 October 2023

Last updated: 25 November 2023

Last updated: 12 May 2023

Last updated: 15 February 2024

Last updated: 11 March 2024

Last updated: 12 December 2023

Last updated: 18 May 2023

Last updated: 6 March 2024

Last updated: 10 April 2023

Last updated: 20 December 2023

Latest articles

Research Question Examples 🧑🏻‍🏫

25+ Practical Examples & Ideas To Help You Get Started

By: Derek Jansen (MBA) | October 2023

A well-crafted research question (or set of questions) sets the stage for a robust study and meaningful insights. But, if you’re new to research, it’s not always clear what exactly constitutes a good research question. In this post, we’ll provide you with clear examples of quality research questions across various disciplines, so that you can approach your research project with confidence!

Research Question Examples

Psychology research questions
Business research questions
Education research questions
Healthcare research questions
Computer science research questions

Examples: Psychology

Let’s start by looking at some examples of research questions that you might encounter within the discipline of psychology.

How does sleep quality affect academic performance in university students?

This question is specific to a population (university students) and looks at a direct relationship between sleep and academic performance, both of which are quantifiable and measurable variables.

What factors contribute to the onset of anxiety disorders in adolescents?

The question narrows down the age group and focuses on identifying multiple contributing factors. There are various ways in which it could be approached from a methodological standpoint, including both qualitatively and quantitatively.

Do mindfulness techniques improve emotional well-being?

This is a focused research question aiming to evaluate the effectiveness of a specific intervention.

How does early childhood trauma impact adult relationships?

This research question targets a clear cause-and-effect relationship over a long timescale, making it focused but comprehensive.

Is there a correlation between screen time and depression in teenagers?

This research question focuses on an in-demand current issue and a specific demographic, allowing for a focused investigation. The key variables are clearly stated within the question and can be measured and analysed (i.e., high feasibility).

Free Webinar: How To Find A Dissertation Research Topic

Examples: Business/Management

Next, let’s look at some examples of well-articulated research questions within the business and management realm.

How do leadership styles impact employee retention?

This is an example of a strong research question because it directly looks at the effect of one variable (leadership styles) on another (employee retention), allowing from a strongly aligned methodological approach.

What role does corporate social responsibility play in consumer choice?

Current and precise, this research question can reveal how social concerns are influencing buying behaviour by way of a qualitative exploration.

Does remote work increase or decrease productivity in tech companies?

Focused on a particular industry and a hot topic, this research question could yield timely, actionable insights that would have high practical value in the real world.

How do economic downturns affect small businesses in the homebuilding industry?

Vital for policy-making, this highly specific research question aims to uncover the challenges faced by small businesses within a certain industry.

Which employee benefits have the greatest impact on job satisfaction?

By being straightforward and specific, answering this research question could provide tangible insights to employers.

Examples: Education

Next, let’s look at some potential research questions within the education, training and development domain.

How does class size affect students’ academic performance in primary schools?

This example research question targets two clearly defined variables, which can be measured and analysed relatively easily.

Do online courses result in better retention of material than traditional courses?

Timely, specific and focused, answering this research question can help inform educational policy and personal choices about learning formats.

What impact do US public school lunches have on student health?

Targeting a specific, well-defined context, the research could lead to direct changes in public health policies.

To what degree does parental involvement improve academic outcomes in secondary education in the Midwest?

This research question focuses on a specific context (secondary education in the Midwest) and has clearly defined constructs.

What are the negative effects of standardised tests on student learning within Oklahoma primary schools?

This research question has a clear focus (negative outcomes) and is narrowed into a very specific context.

Need a helping hand?

social psychology research questions examples

Examples: Healthcare

Shifting to a different field, let’s look at some examples of research questions within the healthcare space.

What are the most effective treatments for chronic back pain amongst UK senior males?

Specific and solution-oriented, this research question focuses on clear variables and a well-defined context (senior males within the UK).

How do different healthcare policies affect patient satisfaction in public hospitals in South Africa?

This question is has clearly defined variables and is narrowly focused in terms of context.

Which factors contribute to obesity rates in urban areas within California?

This question is focused yet broad, aiming to reveal several contributing factors for targeted interventions.

Does telemedicine provide the same perceived quality of care as in-person visits for diabetes patients?

Ideal for a qualitative study, this research question explores a single construct (perceived quality of care) within a well-defined sample (diabetes patients).

Which lifestyle factors have the greatest affect on the risk of heart disease?

This research question aims to uncover modifiable factors, offering preventive health recommendations.

Examples: Computer Science

Last but certainly not least, let’s look at a few examples of research questions within the computer science world.

What are the perceived risks of cloud-based storage systems?

Highly relevant in our digital age, this research question would align well with a qualitative interview approach to better understand what users feel the key risks of cloud storage are.

Which factors affect the energy efficiency of data centres in Ohio?

With a clear focus, this research question lays a firm foundation for a quantitative study.

How do TikTok algorithms impact user behaviour amongst new graduates?

While this research question is more open-ended, it could form the basis for a qualitative investigation.

What are the perceived risk and benefits of open-source software software within the web design industry?

Practical and straightforward, the results could guide both developers and end-users in their choices.

Remember, these are just examples…

In this post, we’ve tried to provide a wide range of research question examples to help you get a feel for what research questions look like in practice. That said, it’s important to remember that these are just examples and don’t necessarily equate to good research topics . If you’re still trying to find a topic, check out our topic megalist for inspiration.

Psst... there’s more!

This post was based on one of our popular Research Bootcamps . If you're working on a research project, you'll definitely want to check this out ...

You Might Also Like:

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Print Friendly

Social Psychology: Definition, Theories, Scope, & Examples

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:

Social psychology is the scientific study of how people’s thoughts, feelings, beliefs, intentions, and goals are constructed within a social context by the actual or imagined interactions with others.

It, therefore, looks at human behavior as influenced by other people and the conditions under which social behavior and feelings occur.

Baron, Byrne, and Suls (1989) define social psychology as “the scientific field that seeks to understand the nature and causes of individual behavior in social situations” (p. 6).

Topics examined in social psychology include the self-concept , social cognition, attribution theory , social influence, group processes, prejudice and discrimination , interpersonal processes, aggression, attitudes , and stereotypes .

Social psychology operates on several foundational assumptions. These fundamental beliefs provide a framework for theories, research, and interpretations.

Individual and Society Interplay : Social psychologists assume an interplay exists between individual minds and the broader social context. An individual’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are continuously shaped by social interactions, and in turn, individuals influence the societies they are a part of.
Behavior is Contextual : One core assumption is that behavior can vary significantly based on the situation or context. While personal traits and dispositions matter, the circumstances or social environment often play a decisive role in determining behavior.
Objective Reality is Difficult to Attain : Our perceptions of reality are influenced by personal beliefs, societal norms, and past experiences. Therefore, our understanding of “reality” is subjective and can be biased or distorted.
Social Reality is Constructed : Social psychologists believe that individuals actively construct their social world . Through processes like social categorization, attribution, and cognitive biases, people create their understanding of others and societal norms.
People are Social Beings with a Need to Belong : A fundamental assumption is the inherent social nature of humans. People have an innate need to connect with others, form relationships, and belong to groups. This need influences a wide range of behaviors and emotions.
Attitudes Influence Behavior : While this might seem straightforward, it’s a foundational belief that our attitudes (combinations of beliefs and feelings) can and often do drive our actions. However, it’s also understood that this relationship can be complex and bidirectional.
People Desire Cognitive Consistency : This is the belief that people are motivated to maintain consistency in their beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors. Cognitive dissonance theory , which posits that people feel discomfort when holding conflicting beliefs and are motivated to resolve this, is based on this assumption.
People are Motivated to See Themselves in a Positive Light : The self plays a central role in social psychology. It’s assumed that individuals are generally motivated to maintain and enhance a positive self-view.
Behavior Can be Predicted and Understood : An underlying assumption of any science, including social psychology, is that phenomena (in this case, human behavior in social contexts) can be studied, understood, predicted, and potentially influenced.
Cultural and Biological Factors are Integral : Though earlier social psychology might have been criticized for neglecting these factors, contemporary social psychology acknowledges the roles of both biology (genes, hormones, brain processes) and culture (norms, values, traditions) in shaping social behavior.

Early Influences

Aristotle believed that humans were naturally sociable, a necessity that allows us to live together (an individual-centered approach), whilst Plato felt that the state controlled the individual and encouraged social responsibility through social context (a socio-centered approach).

Hegel (1770–1831) introduced the concept that society has inevitable links with the development of the social mind. This led to the idea of a group mind, which is important in the study of social psychology.

Lazarus & Steinthal wrote about Anglo-European influences in 1860. “Volkerpsychologie” emerged, which focused on the idea of a collective mind.

It emphasized the notion that personality develops because of cultural and community influences, especially through language, which is both a social product of the community as well as a means of encouraging particular social thought in the individual. Therefore Wundt (1900–1920) encouraged the methodological study of language and its influence on the social being.

Early Texts

Texts focusing on social psychology first emerged in the 20th century. McDougall published the first notable book in English in 1908 (An Introduction to Social Psychology), which included chapters on emotion and sentiment, morality, character, and religion, quite different from those incorporated in the field today.

He believed social behavior was innate/instinctive and, therefore, individual, hence his choice of topics. This belief is not the principle upheld in modern social psychology, however.

Allport’s work (1924) underpins current thinking to a greater degree, as he acknowledged that social behavior results from interactions between people.

He also took a methodological approach, discussing actual research and emphasizing that the field was a “science … which studies the behavior of the individual in so far as his behavior stimulates other individuals, or is itself a reaction to this behavior” (1942: p. 12).

His book also dealt with topics still evident today, such as emotion, conformity, and the effects of an audience on others.

Murchison (1935) published The first handbook on social psychology was published by Murchison in 1935. Murphy & Murphy (1931/37) produced a book summarizing the findings of 1,000 studies in social psychology. A text by Klineberg (1940) looked at the interaction between social context and personality development. By the 1950s, several texts were available on the subject.

Journal Development

• 1950s – Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology

• 1963 – Journal of Personality, British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology

• 1965 – Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

• 1971 – Journal of Applied Social Psychology, European Journal of Social Psychology

• 1975 – Social Psychology Quarterly, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

• 1982 – Social Cognition

• 1984 – Journal of Social and Personal Relationships

Early Experiments

There is some disagreement about the first true experiment, but the following are certainly among some of the most important.

Triplett (1898) applied the experimental method to investigate the performance of cyclists and schoolchildren on how the presence of others influences overall performance – thus, how individuals are affected and behave in the social context.

By 1935, the study of social norms had developed, looking at how individuals behave according to the rules of society. This was conducted by Sherif (1935).

Lewin et al. then began experimental research into leadership and group processes by 1939, looking at effective work ethics under different leadership styles.

Later Developments

Much of the key research in social psychology developed following World War II, when people became interested in the behavior of individuals when grouped together and in social situations. Key studies were carried out in several areas.

Some studies focused on how attitudes are formed, changed by the social context, and measured to ascertain whether a change has occurred.

Amongst some of the most famous works in social psychology is that on obedience conducted by Milgram in his “electric shock” study, which looked at the role an authority figure plays in shaping behavior. Similarly, Zimbardo’s prison simulation notably demonstrated conformity to given roles in the social world.

Wider topics then began to emerge, such as social perception, aggression, relationships, decision-making, pro-social behavior, and attribution, many of which are central to today’s topics and will be discussed throughout this website.

Thus, the growth years of social psychology occurred during the decades following the 1940s.

The scope of social psychology is vast, reflecting the myriad ways social factors intertwine with individual cognition and behavior.

Its principles and findings resonate in virtually every area of human interaction, making it a vital field for understanding and improving the human experience.

Interpersonal Relationships : This covers attraction, love, jealousy, friendship, and group dynamics. Understanding how and why relationships form and the factors that contribute to their maintenance or dissolution is central to this domain.
Attitude Formation and Change : How do individuals form opinions and attitudes? What methods can effectively change them? This scope includes the study of persuasion, propaganda, and cognitive dissonance.
Social Cognition : This examines how people process, store, and apply information about others. Areas include social perception, heuristics, stereotypes, and attribution theories.
Social Influence : The study of conformity, compliance, obedience, and the myriad ways individuals influence one another falls within this domain.
Group Dynamics : This entails studying group behavior, intergroup relations, group decision-making processes, leadership, and more. Concepts like groupthink and group polarization emerge from this area.
Prejudice and Discrimination : Understanding the roots of bias, racism, sexism, and other forms of prejudice, as well as exploring interventions to reduce them, is a significant focus.
Self and Identity : Investigating self-concept, self-esteem, self-presentation, and the social construction of identity are all part of this realm.
Prosocial Behavior and Altruism : Why do individuals sometimes help others, even at a cost to themselves? This area delves into the motivations and conditions that foster cooperative and altruistic behavior.
Aggression : From understanding the underlying causes of aggressive behavior to studying societal factors that exacerbate or mitigate aggression, this topic seeks to dissect the nature of hostile actions.
Cultural and Cross-cultural Dimensions : As societies become more interconnected, understanding cultural influences on behavior, cognition, and emotion is crucial. This area compares and contrasts behaviors across different cultures and societal groups.
Environmental and Applied Settings : Social psychology principles find application in health psychology, environmental behavior, organizational behavior, consumer behavior, and more.
Social Issues : Social psychologists might study the impact of societal structures on individual behavior, exploring topics like poverty, urban stress, and crime.
Education : Principles of social psychology enhance teaching methods, address issues of classroom dynamics, and promote effective learning.
Media and Technology : In the digital age, understanding the effects of media consumption, the dynamics of online communication, and the formation of online communities is increasingly relevant.
Law : Insights from social psychology inform areas such as jury decision-making, eyewitness testimony, and legal procedures.
Health : Concepts from social psychology are employed to promote health behaviors, understand doctor-patient dynamics, and tackle issues like addiction.

Example Theories

Allport (1920) – social facilitation.

Allport introduced the notion that the presence of others (the social group) can facilitate certain behavior.

It was found that an audience would improve an actor’s performance in well-learned/easy tasks but leads to a decrease in performance on newly learned/difficult tasks due to social inhibition.

Bandura (1963) Social Learning Theory

Bandura introduced the notion that behavior in the social world could be modeled. Three groups of children watched a video where an adult was aggressive towards a ‘bobo doll,’ and the adult was either just seen to be doing this, was rewarded by another adult for their behavior, or was punished for it.

Children who had seen the adult rewarded were found to be more likely to copy such behavior.

Festinger (1950) – Cognitive Dissonance

Festinger, Schacter, and Black brought up the idea that when we hold beliefs, attitudes, or cognitions which are different, then we experience dissonance – this is an inconsistency that causes discomfort.

We are motivated to reduce this by either changing one of our thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes or selectively attending to information that supports one of our beliefs and ignores the other (selective exposure hypothesis).

Dissonance occurs when there are difficult choices or decisions or when people participate in behavior that is contrary to their attitude. Dissonance is thus brought about by effort justification (when aiming to reach a modest goal), induced compliance (when people are forced to comply contrary to their attitude), and free choice (when weighing up decisions).

Tajfel (1971) – Social Identity Theory

When divided into artificial (minimal) groups, prejudice results simply from the awareness that there is an “out-group” (the other group).

When the boys were asked to allocate points to others (which might be converted into rewards) who were either part of their own group or the out-group, they displayed a strong in-group preference. That is, they allocated more points on the set task to boys who they believed to be in the same group as themselves.

This can be accounted for by Tajfel & Turner’s social identity theory, which states that individuals need to maintain a positive sense of personal and social identity: this is partly achieved by emphasizing the desirability of one’s own group, focusing on distinctions between other “lesser” groups.

Weiner (1986) – Attribution Theory

Weiner was interested in the attributions made for experiences of success and failure and introduced the idea that we look for explanations of behavior in the social world.

He believed that these were made based on three areas: locus, which could be internal or external; stability, which is whether the cause is stable or changes over time: and controllability.

Milgram (1963) – Shock Experiment

Participants were told that they were taking part in a study on learning but always acted as the teacher when they were then responsible for going over paired associate learning tasks.

When the learner (a stooge) got the answer wrong, they were told by a scientist that they had to deliver an electric shock. This did not actually happen, although the participant was unaware of this as they had themselves a sample (real!) shock at the start of the experiment.

They were encouraged to increase the voltage given after each incorrect answer up to a maximum voltage, and it was found that all participants gave shocks up to 300v, with 65 percent reaching the highest level of 450v.

It seems that obedience is most likely to occur in an unfamiliar environment and in the presence of an authority figure, especially when covert pressure is put upon people to obey. It is also possible that it occurs because the participant felt that someone other than themselves was responsible for their actions.

Haney, Banks, Zimbardo (1973) – Stanford Prison Experiment

Volunteers took part in a simulation where they were randomly assigned the role of a prisoner or guard and taken to a converted university basement resembling a prison environment. There was some basic loss of rights for the prisoners, who were unexpectedly arrested, and given a uniform and an identification number (they were therefore deindividuated).

The study showed that conformity to social roles occurred as part of the social interaction, as both groups displayed more negative emotions, and hostility and dehumanization became apparent.

Prisoners became passive, whilst the guards assumed an active, brutal, and dominant role. Although normative and informational social influence played a role here, deindividuation/the loss of a sense of identity seemed most likely to lead to conformity.

Both this and Milgram’s study introduced the notion of social influence and the ways in which this could be observed/tested.

Provides Clear Predictions

As a scientific discipline, social psychology prioritizes formulating clear and testable hypotheses. This clarity facilitates empirical testing, ensuring the field’s findings are based on observable and quantifiable phenomena.

The Asch conformity experiments hypothesized that individuals would conform to a group’s incorrect judgment.

The clear prediction allowed for controlled experimentation to determine the extent and conditions of such conformity.

Emphasizes Objective Measurement

Social psychology leans heavily on empirical methods, emphasizing objectivity. This means that results are less influenced by biases or subjective interpretations.

Double-blind procedures , controlled settings, and standardized measures in many social psychology experiments ensure that results are replicable and less prone to experimenter bias.

Empirical Evidence

Over the years, a multitude of experiments in social psychology have bolstered the credibility of its theories. This experimental validation lends weight to its findings and claims.

The robust body of experimental evidence supporting cognitive dissonance theory, from Festinger’s initial studies to more recent replications, showcases the theory’s enduring strength and relevance.

Limitations

Underestimates individual differences.

While social psychology often looks at broad trends and general behaviors, it can sometimes gloss over individual differences.

Not everyone conforms, obeys, or reacts in the same way, and these nuanced differences can be critical.

While Milgram’s obedience experiments showcased a startling rate of compliance to authority, there were still participants who resisted, and their reasons and characteristics are equally important to understand.

Ignores Biology

While social psychology focuses on the social environment’s impact on behavior, early theories sometimes neglect the biological underpinnings that play a role.

Hormones, genetics, and neurological factors can influence behavior and might intersect with social factors in complex ways.

The role of testosterone in aggressive behavior is a clear instance where biology intersects with the social. Ignoring such biological components can lead to an incomplete understanding.

Superficial Snapshots of Social Processes

Social psychology sometimes offers a narrow view, capturing only a momentary slice of a broader, evolving process. This might mean that the field fails to capture the depth, evolution, or intricacies of social processes over time.

A study might capture attitudes towards a social issue at a single point in time, but not account for the historical evolution, future shifts, or deeper societal underpinnings of those attitudes.

Allport, F. H. (1920). The influence of the group upon association and thought. Journal of Experimental Psychology , 3(3), 159.

Allport, F. H. (1924). Response to social stimulation in the group. Social psychology , 260-291.

Allport, F. H. (1942). Methods in the study of collective action phenomena. The Journal of Social Psychology , 15(1), 165-185.

Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. (1963). Vicarious reinforcement and imitative learning. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology , 67(6), 601.

Baron, R. A., Byrne, D., & Suls, J. (1989). Attitudes: Evaluating the social world. Baron et al, Social Psychology . 3rd edn. MA: Allyn and Bacon, 79-101.

Festinger, L., Schachter, S., & Back, K. (1950). Social processes in informal groups .

Haney, C., Banks, W. C., & Zimbardo, P. G. (1973). Study of prisoners and guards in a simulated prison. Naval Research Reviews , 9(1-17).

Klineberg, O. (1940). The problem of personality .

Krewer, B., & Jahoda, G. (1860). On the scope of Lazarus and Steinthals “Völkerpsychologie” as reflected in the. Zeitschrift für Völkerpsychologie und Sprachwissenschaft, 1890, 4-12.

Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., & White, R. K. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created “social climates”. The Journal of Social Psychology , 10(2), 269-299.

Mcdougall, W. (1908). An introduction to social psychology . Londres: Methuen.

Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology , 67(4), 371.

Murchison, C. (1935). A handbook of social psychology .

Murphy, G., & Murphy, L. B. (1931). Experimental social psychology .

Sherif, M. (1935). A study of some social factors in perception. Archives of Psychology (Columbia University).

Tajfel, H., Billig, M. G., Bundy, R. P., & Flament, C. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behavior. European journal of social psychology , 1(2), 149-178.

Triplett, N. (1898). The dynamogenic factors in pacemaking and competition. American journal of Psychology , 9(4), 507-533.

Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion . New York: Springer-Verlag.

Social Psychology Research

What is social psychology research.

Social psychology research is like being a detective of human behavior, trying to figure out why people do what they do when others are around. Imagine you’re in a playground or a hallway at school. Why do you talk louder, or why do some kids try to show off? These are the types of questions social psychologists study. They look at the tricks our minds play on us, like making us feel really important when we win a game, or super embarrassed if we trip in public.

To break it down further, let’s think about something simple like choosing what to wear. If you pick a favorite shirt because you’ve seen a popular student wear it, that’s social psychology at work. It’s about the little, sometimes invisible, rules that guide our actions – like clapping after a classmate gives a presentation or choosing where to sit in the cafeteria based on who else is sitting there.

This research digs into questions like why some people are leaders and others are followers, or why we like some people right away but it takes longer to warm up to others. Understanding this stuff isn’t just interesting – it can help us make better places to live and learn by teaching us how to treat each other well.

Examples of Social Psychology Research

Conformity Experiments: Imagine you’re in a room where everyone is saying 2 + 2 equals 5. Even if you know it’s not true, you might start to agree just to fit in. This shows how a group’s influence can be so strong it might lead you to ignore what you believe.
Attribution Theory: Seeing someone eat a whole pizza and thinking “They must be greedy,” is an example of an attribution. But maybe they’re just super hungry after a workout. Attribution theory helps us realize that our first thought about someone’s action might not always be right.
Social Influence: When a friend gets you to listen to a new song and you end up loving it, that’s social influence. It’s all about how friends, family, and even celebrities can nudge us to try new things or change our opinions.
Stereotyping and Prejudice: If someone assumes a new classmate isn’t smart just because they dress differently, that’s stereotyping. Research into why this happens can help us stop unfair treatment based on looks or background.

Why is it Important?

Imagine a world where we understand why we act the way we do in groups, like why we might give into peer pressure, or why we work better in a team sometimes but not others. This understanding can stop us from making snap judgments about others and can lead to things like rules against bullying or laws that protect people’s rights. It helps us see the invisible strings that pull our thoughts and actions, which can guide us to change for the better, making happier, healthier communities. It’s not just about big problems, either. This knowledge can help you navigate everyday life, from figuring out how to deal with a disagreement with a friend to understanding why your family acts a certain way at gatherings.

Origin of Social Psychology Research

Over a century ago, psychologists started noticing how the presence of others could change the way we act. Like being braver on the playground when your friends are watching, or cycling faster in a race with others. Those early studies laid the groundwork for modern social psychology, which continues to explore the fascinating ways that others’ presence or opinions shape our lives.

Controversies in Social Psychology Research

Along the way, there have been bumps in the road. Some experiments couldn’t be repeated, which made people question the results. And, sometimes, studies didn’t treat participants well, sparking a debate on ethics. Additionally, much of the research was on American or European college students, which might not reflect the behaviors of other cultures. But nowadays, social psychologists are working to understand the diversity of human behavior across the world.

Other Important Aspects of Social Psychology Research

This area of study isn’t just about theory; it has real-world applications. It’s used in workplaces to help teams function better, in promoting healthy habits, and even in designing technology like smartphones and apps that understand user behavior. Social psychologists are also expanding their reach to understand cultural differences and are harnessing technology, such as online platforms, to take a more comprehensive look at human social interactions.

Psychology Unlocked

The free online psychology textbook, social psychology research topics.

January 24, 2017 Daniel Edward Blog , Social Psychology 0

Whether you’re looking for social psychology research topics for your A-Level or AP Psychology class, or considering a research question to explore for your Psychology PhD, the Psychology Unlocked list of social psychology research topics provides you with a strong list of possible avenues to explore.

Where possible we include links to university departments seeking PhD applications for certain projects. Even if you are not yet considering PhD options, these links may prove useful to you in developing your undergraduate or masters dissertation.

Lots of university psychology departments provide contact details on their websites.

If you read a psychologist’s paper and have questions that you would like to learn more about, drop them an email.

Lots of psychologists are very happy to receive emails from genuinely interested students and are often generous with their time and expertise… and those who aren’t will just overlook the email, so no harm done either way!

Psychology eZine

Subscribe to our weekly newsletter for videos, articles, news and more.

We use Sendinblue as our marketing platform. By Clicking below to submit this form, you acknowledge that the information you provided will be transferred to Sendinblue for processing in accordance with their terms of use

The Dunning-Kruger Effect: Why we think we know more than we do
The Yale Food Addiction Scale: Are you addicted to food?
Addicted to Pepsi Max? Understand addiction in six minutes (video)
Functional Fixedness: The cognitive bias and how to beat it
Summer Spending Spree! How Summer Burns A Hole In Your Pocket

What social factors are involved with the development of aggressive thoughts and behaviours? Is aggression socially-defined? Do different societies have differing definitions of aggression?

There has recently been a significant amount of research conducted on the influence of video games and television on aggression and violent behaviour.

Some research has been based on high-profile case studies, such as the aggressive murder of Jamie Bulger in 1993 by two children (Robert Thompson and Jon Venables). There is also a significant body of experimental research.

Attachment and Relationships

This is a huge area of research with lots of crossover into developmental psychology. What draws people together? How do people connect emotionally? What is love? What is friendship? What happens if someone doesn’t form an attachment with a parental figure?

This area includes research on attachment styles (at various stages of life), theories of love, friendship and attraction.

Attitudes and Attitude Change

Attitudes are a relatively enduring and general evaluation of something. Individuals hold attitudes on everything in life, from other people to inanimate objects, groups to ideologies.

Attitudes are thought to involve three components: (1) affective (to do with emotions), (2) behavioural, and (3) cognitive (to do with thoughts).

Research on attitudes can be closely linked to Prejudice (see below).

Authority and Leadership

Perhaps the most famous study of authority is Milgram’s (1961) Obedience to Authority . This research area has grown into a far-reaching and influential topic.

Research considers both positive and negative elements of authority, and applied psychology studies consider the role of authority in a particular social setting, such as advertising, in the workplace, or in a classroom.

The Psychology of Crowds (Le Bon, 1895) paved a path for a fascinating area of social psychology that considers the social group as an active player.

Groups tend to act differently from individuals, and specific individuals will act differently depending on the group they are in.

Social psychology research topics about groups consider group dynamics, leadership (see above), group-think and decision-making, intra-group and inter-group conflict, identities (see below) and prejudices (see below).

Gordon Allport’s (1979) ‘The Nature of Prejudice’ is a seminal piece on group stereotyping and discrimination.

Social psychologists consider what leads to the formation of stereotypes and prejudices. How and why are prejudices used? Why do we maintain inaccurate stereotypes? What are the benefits and costs of prejudice?

This interesting blog post on the BPS Digest Blog may provide some inspiration for research into prejudice and political uncertainty.

Pro- and Anti-Social Behaviour

Behaviours are only pro- or anti-social because of social norms that suggest so. Social Psychologists therefore investigate the roots of these behaviours as well as considering what happens when social norms are ignored.

Within this area of social psychology, researchers may consider why people help others (strangers as well as well as known others). Another interesting question regards the factors that might deter an individual from acting pro-socially, even if they are aware that a behaviour is ‘the right thing to do’.

The bystander effect is one such example of social inaction.

Self and Social Identity

Tajfel and Turner (1979) proposed Social Identity Theory and a large body of research has developed out of the concepts of self and social identity (or identities).

Questions in this area include: what is identity? What is the self? Does a social identity remain the same across time and space? What are the contributory factors to an individual’s social identity?

Zimbardo’s (1972) Stanford Prison Experiment famously considered the role of social identities.

Research in this area also links with work on groups (see above), social cognition (see below), and prejudices (see above).

Social Cognition

Social cognition regards the way we think and use information. It is the cross-over point between the fields of social and cognitive psychology.

Perhaps the most famous concept in this area is that of schemas – general ideas about the world, which allow us to make sense of new (and old) information quickly.

Social cognition also includes those considering heuristics (mental shortcuts) and some cognitive biases.

Social Influence

This is one of the first areas of social psychology that most students learn. Remember the social conformity work by Asch (1951) on the length of lines?

Other social psychology research topics within this area include persuasion and peer-pressure.

Social Representations

Social Representations (Moscovici, 1961) ‘make something unfamiliar, or unfamiliarity itself, familiar’ (Moscovici, 1984). This is a theory with its academic roots in Durkheim’s theory of collective representations.

Researchers working within this framework consider the social role of knowledge. How does information translate from the scientific realm of expert knowledge to the socially accessible realm of the layperson? How do we make sense of new information? How do we organise separate and distinct facts in a way that make sense to our needs?

One of the most famous studies using Social Representations Theory is Jodelet’s (1991) study of madness.

Social Article
Social Psychology

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

Chapter 1. Introducing Social Psychology

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.

Is social psychology just common sense?

To test for yourself whether or not social psychology is just common sense, try doing this activity. 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 activity. 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? If you are like most people, you will get at least some of these answers wrong.

Read through each finding, and decide if you think the research evidence shows that it is either mainly true or mainly false. When you have figured out the answers, think about why each finding is either mainly true or mainly false. You may also find some other ideas on this as you work your way through the textbook chapters!

Opposites attract.
An athlete who wins the bronze medal (third place) in an event is happier about his or her performance than the athlete who won the silver medal (second place).
Having good friends you can count on can keep you from catching colds.
Subliminal advertising (i.e., persuasive messages that are presented out of our awareness on TV or movie screens) is very effective in getting us to buy products.
The greater the reward promised for an activity, the more one will come to enjoy engaging in that activity.
Physically attractive people are seen as less intelligent than less attractive people.
Punching a pillow or screaming out loud is a good way to reduce frustration and aggressive tendencies.
People pull harder in a tug-of-war when they’re pulling alone than when pulling in a group.

H5P: TEST YOUR LEARNING: CHAPTER 1 DRAG THE WORDS – CLASSIC FINDINGS IN SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

Read through each finding, taken from Table 1.5 in the chapter summary, and decide if you think the research evidence shows that it is either mainly true or mainly false by dragging the correct word into each box. Pay attention to the number of “trues” and “falses” available! When you have figured out the answers, think about why each finding is either mainly true or mainly false. You may also find some other ideas on this as you work your way through the textbook chapters!

An athlete who wins the bronze medal (third place) in an event is happier about his or her performance than the athlete who wins the silver medal (second place).
Subliminal advertising (i.e., persuasive messages that are displayed out of our awareness on TV or movie screens) is very effective in getting us to buy products.

See Table 1.5 in the chapter summary for answers and explanations.

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 “ 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.

Social Psychology Journals:

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
Social Psychology and Personality Science
Social Cognition
European Journal of Social Psychology
Social Psychology Quarterly
Basic and Applied Social Psychology
Journal of Applied Social Psychology

Note. The research articles in these journals are likely to be available in your college or university library.

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 1.7, “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.”

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. Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 Strongly agree
I like Robert. Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 Strongly agree

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 Sarah 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.”

Social Neuroscience: Measuring Social Responses in the Brain

Still another approach to measuring 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.

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 1.9, “MRI BOLD activation in an emotional Stroop task”) 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.

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.

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 an earthquake on the residents of Tokyo, the reactions of Israelis 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 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 importantly, 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 specific prediction 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 cult’s 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, which 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

Correlational research is designed 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 Pearson 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). Recent 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. 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 grades are correlated with university grades, if we know a person’s high-school grades, we can predict his or her likely university grades. 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, 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 1.13, “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.

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.

You may 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 1.14, “An Experimental Research Design (After Anderson & Dill, 2000).”

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 before the experiment begins, 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 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 play 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. 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 because they had created initial equivalence between the groups. 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 is the extent to which changes in the dependent variable in an experiment can confidently be attributed to changes in the independent variable .

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, researchers sometimes conduct field experiments, which are experimental research studies that are conducted in a natural environment , such as a school or a factory . However, they 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.

H5P: TEST YOUR LEARNING: CHAPTER 1 DRAG THE WORDS – INDEPENDENT AND DEPENDENT VARIABLES

Read through the following descriptions of experimental studies, and identify the independent and dependent variables in each scenario.

Amount of aggression:
Type of video game:
Size of group of onlookers
Speed of helping response
Amount of attitude change
Type of message
Hostile intention bias score
Type of word
Target of attribution
Type of attribution

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 people see 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 keyboard as soon as they heard a tone over their headphones, and the person who pressed the space bar 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.

As you can see in Figure 1.15, “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 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.

H5P: TEST YOUR LEARNING: CHAPTER 1 DRAG THE WORDS – TYPES OF RESEARCH DESIGN

Now that you have reviewed the three main types of research design used in social psychology, read each brief summary of empirical findings below and identify which type of design the results were derived from – experimental, observational or correlational. Table 1.4 contains some helpful information here.

There is a positive relationship between level of academic self-concept and self-esteem scores in university students.
People are more persuaded if given a two-sided versus a one-sided message.
People assigned to a group of four are more likely to conform to the dominant response in a perceptual task than people tasked with performing the task alone.
People in individualistic cultures make predominantly internal attributions about the causes of social behavior.
The more hours per month individuals spend doing voluntary work with people who are socially marginalized, the less they tend to believe in the just world hypothesis.
13 year-olds engage in more acts of relational aggression towards their peers than 8 year-olds.

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 university 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 1.16 Some Important Aspects of the Scientific Approach

Scientists generate research hypotheses , which are tested using an observational, correlational, or experimental research design .

The variables of interest are measured using self-report or behavioral measures .

Data is interpreted according to its validity (including internal validity and external validity ).

The results of many studies may be combined and summarized using meta-analysis .

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 1.16, “Some Important Aspects of the Scientific Approach”).

H5P: Test your Learning: Chapter 1 True or False Quiz

Try these true/false questions, to see how well you have retained some key ideas from this chapter!

Social psychology is a scientific discipline.
Cultural differences are rarely studied nowadays in social psychology because it has been established that all of its important concepts are universal.
In social psychology, the primary focus in on the behavior of groups, not individuals.
Factorial designs are a type of correlational research.
Nonrandom assignments of participants to conditions in experimental social psychological research ensures that everyone has an equal chance of being in any of the conditions.

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 by using measured variables such as 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

Using Google Scholar 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.
Liking another person
Life satisfaction
Visit the website Online Social Psychology Studies and take part in one of the online studies listed there.

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.

Media Attributions

“ EEG cap ” by Thuglas is licensed under a CC0 1.0 licence.
“ FMRI BOLD activation in an emotional Stroop task ” by Shima Ovaysikia, Khalid A. Tahir, Jason L. Chan and Joseph F. X. DeSouza is licensed under a CC BY 2.5 licence.
“ Varian4T ” by A314268 is licensed under a CC0 1.0 licence.

Based on the collection and systematic analysis of observable data.

The tendency to think that we could have predicted something that we probably would not have been able to predict.

Characteristics that we are trying to measure.

particular method that we use to measure a variable of interest

Measures in which individuals are asked to respond to questions posed by an interviewer or on a questionnaire.

Measures designed to directly assess what people do.

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.

Neuroimaging technique that uses a magnetic field to create images of brain structure and function.

Research that involves making observations of behavior and recording those observations in an objective manner.

Specific prediction about the relationship between the variables of interest and about the specific direction of that relationship.

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.

Search for and test hypotheses about the relationships between two or more variables.

Used to summarize the association, or correlation, between two variables.

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.

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.

The situation that is created by the experimenter through the experimental manipulations.

The variable that is measured after the manipulations have occurred.

Determining separately for each participant which condition he or she will experience through a random process,

The extent to which changes in the dependent variable in an experiment can confidently be attributed to changes in the independent variable.

Are experimental research studies that are conducted in a natural environment,

Experimental designs that have two or more independent variables.

A false statement of what the research was really about.

A person who is actually part of the experimental team but who pretends to be another participant in the study.

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.

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.

Principles of Social Psychology - 1st International H5P Edition Copyright © 2022 by Dr. Rajiv Jhangiani and Dr. Hammond Tarry is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

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

2 Research Methods in Social Psychology

Social psychologists are interested in the ways that other people affect thought, emotion, and behavior. To explore these concepts requires scientific 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

Two competitive cyclists riding in a race.

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.

There are several key features to experiments including the manipulation of independent variables and the use of random assignment. Researchers can infer causality from experimental studies because experiments involve randomly assigning participants to one or more conditions of the experiment. This process prevents individual differences amongst the participants to alter the results. Imagine that a researcher was interested in examining whether academic failure reduced creativity. The independent variable in this study was academic failure because they believed this variable would exert an influence on creativity. To operationalize these variables, the researchers administered an achievement test to participants and randomly assigned participants to receive a failing grade, a passing grade, or no feedback (which served as the control). Following the achievement test and feedback, all participants were asked to list as many creative uses as they could for a brick (commonly referred to as the Guilford alternative uses task. Thus, the dependent variable for this study was creativity, operationalized as the participant’s ability to come up with high numbers of alternative uses for a brick. Unlike correlational studies, experiments can determine causality and thus, are often preferred by social psychologists. A correlational study examining the same hypothesis could examine the link between failing academic grades and individual performances on the Guildford alternative uses task, but because participants were not random assigned a failing grade, any relationship found between grades and creativity has a reverse causality problem. Getting more “F”s could make people less creative or being less creative could have led to more “F”s. An experiment rules out the reverse-causality issue.

Some experiments have more complex designs. 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.

Graphs showing the relationship between being from a culture of honor and cortisol levels during an experiment as described in the preceding paragraphs.

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.

Person seated at a desk using a smartphone.

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

Archive shelves full of document binders.

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.

College graduates stand in caps and gowns during a commencement ceremony.

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

Blindfolded and bound prisoner standing with two prison guards wearing sunglasses.

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.

Text Attribution

Media attributions.

Figure 2.1: Asch experiment
Mobile phone
Depósito del Archivo de la Fundación Sierra-Pambley
Conant Graduation
SPE1971-guards with blindfolded prisoner

When performance on simple or well-rehearsed tasks is enhanced when we are in the presence of others.

An argument that is based on personal experience and not considered reliable or representative.

A method of investigation that includes systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

A possible explanation that can be tested through research.

How researchers specifically measure a concept.

The variable the researcher manipulates and controls in an experiment.

The variable the researcher measures but does not manipulate in an experiment.

A setting in which the researcher can carefully control situations and manipulate variables.

An experiment with two or more independent variables.

An interdisciplinary field concerned with identifying the neural processes underlying social behavior and cognition.

The individual characteristics of research subjects - age, personality, health, intelligence, etc.

A fake description of the purpose and/or procedure of a study, used when deception is necessary in order to answer a research question.

An actor working with the researcher. Most often, this individual is used to deceive unsuspecting research participants. Also known as a “stooge.”

An experiment that occurs outside of the lab and in a real world situation.

Assigning participants to receive different conditions of an experiment by chance.

Unobtrusively watching people as they go about the business of living their lives.

The tendency for people to associate themselves with successful people or groups.

Systematic ways of having participants provide samples of their ongoing behavior. Participants' reports are dependent (contingent) upon either a signal, pre-established intervals, or the occurrence of some event.

A methodology where participants wear a small, portable audio recorder that intermittently records snippets of ambient sounds around them.

A method of research that involves administering a questionnaire to respondents in person, by telephone, through the mail, or over the internet.

A computer-based categorization task that measures the strength of association between specific concepts over several trials.

The process by which exposing people to one stimulus makes certain thoughts, feelings or behaviors more salient.

A theory that proposes that humans manage the anxiety that stems from the inevitability of death by embracing frameworks of meaning such as cultural values and beliefs.

A measure used to determine whether or not the manipulation of the independent variable has had its intended effect on the participants.

A field of research that investigates how the activation of one social concept in memory can elicit changes in behavior, physiology, or self-reports of a related social concept without conscious awareness.

A type of research in which the researcher analyses records or archives instead of collecting data from live human participants.

A type of descriptive research that involves measuring the association between two variables, or how they go together.

The degree to which a study finding has been obtained under conditions that are typical for what happens in everyday life.

The analysis of large data sets.

Participants that have been recruited in a manner that prioritizes convenience over representativeness.

Cultures that are western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic.

Subtle cues that make participants aware of what the experimenter expects to find or how participants are expected to behave.

An Introduction to Social Psychology Copyright © 2022 by Thomas Edison State University is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

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.

The Importance of Scientific Research

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?

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

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 .

Figure 1.4 The Operational Definition

The Operational Definition: Sarah Likes Robert. Either Sarah says,

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

I enjoy being around Robert.

Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 Strongly agree

I get along well with Robert.

I like Robert.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Playing violent video games may lead to aggressive behavior, but aggressive behavior may lead to playing violent video games

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.

Playing violent video games may lead to aggressive behavior

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.

Aggressive behavior may lead to playing violent video games

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

Where we sit in the class may correlate with our course grade, however, interest in the class, intelligence, and motivation to get good grades could also influences that decision

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.

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

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 an assurance that the independent variable (also known as the experimental manipulation) occurs prior to the measured dependent variable and the creation of initial equivalence between the conditions of the experiment.

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).

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.

Factorial Research Designs

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.

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.

Figure 1.9 Some Important Aspects of the Scientific Approach

Scientists generate research hypotheses, which are tested using an observational, correlational, or experimental research design. The variables of interest are measured using self-report or behavioral measures. Data is interpreted according to its validity (including internal validity and external validity). The results of many studies may be combined and summarized using meta-analysis.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Research Methods in Social Psychology

Laboratory Research

Examples of the cards used in the Asch experiment. The card on the left has a single line. The card on the right has three lines labeled A, B, and C. The line labeled "C" matches the length of the single line on the other card. Line "A" is clearly shorter and line "B" is clearly longer.

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).

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.

A judge dressed in a traditional black robe.

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).

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

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.

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

Photo of a participant guard from the Stanford Prison Experiment wearing sunglasses and holding a truncheon.

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.

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

Bachelor’s Degrees
Master’s Degrees
Doctorate Degrees
Certificate Programs
Nursing Degrees
Cybersecurity
Human Services
Science & Mathematics
Communication
Liberal Arts
Social Sciences
Computer Science
Admissions Overview
Tuition and Financial Aid
Incoming Freshman and Graduate Students
Transfer Students
Military Students
International Students
Early Access Program
About Maryville
Our Faculty
Our Approach
Our History
Accreditation
Tales of the Brave
Student Support Overview
Online Learning Tools
Infographics

Home / Online Bachelor’s Degree Programs / Bachelor of Arts in Psychology Online / Bachelor’s in Psychology Resources / What Is Social Psychology? Theories, Examples, and Definition

What Is Social Psychology? Definition, Key Terms, and Examples What Is Social Psychology? Definition, Key Terms, and Examples What Is Social Psychology? Definition, Key Terms, and Examples

Take your next brave step.

Receive information about the benefits of our programs, the courses you'll take, and what you need to apply.

Social psychologists explore the power of thought and perception to shape action and cement emotional connections. William Shakespeare provided one of the earliest known examples of an insight worthy of a social psychologist in his most psychologically complex play, “Hamlet.”

When the beleaguered prince of Denmark explains why he considers his native country a prison rather than a paradise, he reflects: “Why then … there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so. To me it is a prison.” Whether presented as a trick of the mind (“thinking makes it so”) or as an exploration of everyday thought and action, social psychology is concerned with explaining some of the deepest mysteries of human relationships and behavior.

What is social psychology? It is a scientific exploration of who we are, who we think we are, and how those perceptions shape our experiences as individuals and as a society.

Social psychology is one of the broadest and most complex subcategories of psychology because it is concerned with self-perception and the behavioral interplay among the individuals who make up society. What follows is an overview of social psychology as a science, including its origins, its theories of human cognition and behavior, and the educational pathways to becoming a social psychologist, which can include earning a Bachelor of Arts in Psychology degree .

Social Psychology Definition

Today, researchers and academics examine nearly every aspect of human existence through a psychological lens. The American Psychological Association (APA) lists 15 subfields of psychology, including clinical psychology, brain and cognitive psychology, developmental psychology, and quantitative psychology.

Social psychology is the study of how individual or group behavior is influenced by the presence and behavior of others.

The APA defines social psychology as “the study of how an individual’s thoughts, feelings, and actions are affected” by other people, whether “actual, imagined, or symbolically represented.” In essence, even just imagining another person watching you influences how you will process information, behave, and react — and this is something social psychologists strive to understand.

A social psychologist leads a group discussion.

What Questions Does Social Psychology Answer?

The major question social psychologists ponder is this: How and why are people’s perceptions and actions influenced by environmental factors, such as social interaction?

In seeking the answer to that basic question, researchers conduct empirical studies to answer specific questions such as:

How do individuals alter their thoughts and decisions based on social interactions?
Is human behavior an accurate indication of personality?
How goal oriented is social behavior?
How does social perception influence behavior?
How do potentially destructive social attitudes, such as prejudice, form?

For example, have you ever noticed you act and think differently among people you know than you do among strangers? Have you ever wondered why that is? Social psychologists spend their careers trying to determine the answers to questions like these and what they might mean.

The Origins of the Social Psychology Field

Psychology as a field of scientific exploration remains relatively new, yet its importance as a discipline is clear from the well-known names and concepts of early 20th-century research into human behavior: Pavlov and his salivating dog, Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, and Jung’s archetypes of the unconscious.

These and other researchers wanted to uncover how human perceptions — of oneself, of others, and of the world at large — influence behavior. As the field of psychology matured, researchers began to focus on specialized aspects of the mind and behavior. This gave rise to subcategories of psychology, including social psychology.

Social psychology has been a formal discipline since the turn of the 20th century. An early study in 1898 of “social facilitation” by Indiana University psychology researcher Norman Triplett sought to explain why bicycle racers seemed to exceed their solo performances when they competed directly against others.

Later experiments sought to explain how and why certain artists and performers seemed to shine in front of an audience, while others faltered. During World War II, researchers conducted studies into the effects of propaganda on the behavior of entire populations.

What Is a Social Psychologist?

Social psychology professionals, such as social psychologists, seek to understand the complex interplay between social factors and human behavior. Specific areas of study include:

Group dynamics and attitudes
Interpersonal relationships
Implicit bias and prejudice
Criminal activity

Social psychologists use a variety of research methods, including experiments, surveys, and observations, to study human behavior in social contexts. They apply their findings to a wide range of fields, including business, law, education, healthcare, and public policy, to help solve social problems and improve people’s lives.

Social Psychologist Salary

Social psychologists had a median annual salary of $81,040, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) in 2021. The BLS estimates that the number of people working as psychologists will grow 6% between 2021 and 2031, as fast as the average growth projected for all professions.

While becoming a social psychologist requires advanced education, starting off with a bachelor’s degree in psychology can be an important first step toward this career. Other professions that must consider social psychology principles include social worker, human resources specialist, and career counselor .

What Is Social Psychology vs. Sociology?

Those interested in what social psychology is should understand the difference between this field and other academic disciplines. For example, social psychology and sociology are sometimes confused. This is understandable, because both fields of study are broadly concerned with the way human behavior shapes and is shaped by society.

The primary difference between the two is this: Social psychologists study individuals within a group; sociologists study groups of people.

As early as 1924, when both fields of study were just beginning to reach academic maturity, University of Missouri researcher Charles A. Ellwood sought to simplify the difference between the two. According to Ellwood:

Sociology is “the science of the origin, development, structure, and functioning of groups.”
Social psychology is “the study of the [individual psychological] origins involved in the development, structure, and functioning of social groups.”

Different Ways of Looking at Similar Issues

Naturally, the work done by both types of social scientists occasionally overlaps. A sociologist focuses on how the interplay among different groups of people — those with religious beliefs or ethnicity in common — affects the course of civilization.

This information could be considered a starting point for research by a social psychologist, who might use it to formulate a hypothesis about how an individual is affected by the group dynamic over the course of a lifetime.

For example, a sociologist might focus on the potential far-reaching effects on society of a new law, whereas a social psychologist might focus on how the new law might affect a specific person in the short term and long term.

Another way to think about the differences between social psychology and sociology is to consider the perception of the group dynamic.

For instance, a sociologist might conduct research into how a group of people acts as a unit, while a social psychologist might want to investigate how and why groups of people influence individuals — and why individual behaviors can influence groups of people.

Examples of Social Psychology Topics of Today

Early social psychologists concerned themselves with internal and external influences on individual behavior. British-born psychologist William McDougall’s 1908 publication, “An Introduction to Social Psychology,” focused on human instinct as the driving force behind social interactions.

More topics crowded under the social psychology umbrella with the 1920s work of brothers Floyd Henry Allport and Gordon Willard Allport. The Allports are credited with applying rigorous scientific theory and experimentation techniques to social psychology research.

This dynamic duo also conducted important studies into the development of attitudes, religious beliefs, and many other topics.

Social Psychology Examples

What social psychology is focused on is studying changes over time. Social psychology research has touched on nearly every facet of human personality in an attempt to understand the psychological influence of perception and human interaction. Of the topics currently being researched in social psychology, examples include:

Leadership — What personality traits define a leader? What is the role of a leader within a group? How do leaders exercise influence on groups and individuals?
Aggression — How is aggressive behavior defined? What triggers habitual aggressive behavior? What role does aggression play in self-preservation?
Social perception — How does an individual develop self-perception? How is self-perception shaped by environmental factors? What is the difference between the existential self and the categorical self?
Group behavior — What characteristics do groups share? How many people constitute a group? What dictates the structure of a group? Why do individuals gravitate to a particular group?
Nonverbal behavior — What nonlinguistic actions communicate thought or meaning? How are nonverbal cues developed and interpreted? What emotions do facial expressions, hand gestures, and other nonverbal behaviors communicate?
Conformity — What prompts individuals to change their perceptions to match that of a group or another person? How does an individual decide to accept influence from another or a group? What is the difference between outward conformity and internal conformity?
Prejudice — What causes someone to harbor prejudice against a member of a different social group? What is the difference between prejudice and discrimination? How are stereotypes used to build perceptions?

Examples of Social Psychology Theories

What social psychology is today can also be described in terms of the theories that social psychology devises to explain human behavior. Consider the following mainstream social psychology theories that include theories of social cognition, group behavior, and identity.

Social Cognition

Social cognition is a subtopic of social psychology. Its focus is the study of how and why we perceive ourselves and others as we do. This is important because, without an understanding of our self-perception, it is impossible to fully grasp how our actions are interpreted by others. Similarly, to understand why others act as they do toward us, we must rely on our perceptions of their thoughts and motivations.

Social psychologists conduct research into how and why certain life experiences influence our perceptions of ourselves and others. This key example of social psychology research seeks to understand how memory is processed and how it influences social cognition.

Early Development of Cognitive Perception

Social cognition research often involves an analysis of environmental factors in the early development of cognitive perception. For example, young children’s perceptions are based on an egocentric view — their views of themselves and the world are shaped by limited experience. They do not yet understand how to interpret their own emotions and actions, let alone those of others.

By adulthood, the ability to perceive emotions and understand behavior has developed with experience. Perceptions are formed and decisions are made based on that experience. A functioning adult can call on experience to answer questions like:

Why do I think the way I do about a particular subject or person?
How do my actions affect others?
How should I respond to the actions of others?

The way individuals learn to answer these and other questions about their self-perception falls under the study of social cognition. Scientists explore the mental processes that affect the interplay among perception, memory, and thought in shaping personality and social interaction.

This information, in turn, helps researchers understand the dynamic between group behavior and the development of an individual’s social identity.

Group Behavior

Why are individuals drawn together to form groups? How does the group influence the behavior of an individual, and vice versa?

A study of group behavior attempts to answer these and other questions related to social cognition. It begins with the basic question: What is a group? There is no set definition of a group, but social psychologists generally agree that a group can be identified as a coherent entity made up of individuals who share certain beliefs or characteristics.

Examples of groups include religious affiliations, scientific societies, and political parties. This definition includes large groups, such as the population of a neighborhood or a city, and smaller groups, such as a nuclear family.

The observable actions of a group make up the definition of group behavior. Social psychologists who study group behavior want to know the underlying motivations of those actions, how they originated, how an individual functions within the group, and the role of leadership in the group dynamic.

For example, how and why do some groups act out of a collective sense of kindness and acceptance, while others seem motivated by prejudice and violence? How does the innate conflict between self-perception and external perception affect an individual’s influence within a group? Not only that, but how and why are individual interests, opinions, and abilities sometimes sublimated to the group’s collective purpose?

Group behavior can be studied through the lens of individual status within the group. The group’s patterns of individual relationships may predict the group’s cohesiveness, and they might help explain how and why one group is more productive than another.

An understanding of group behavior helps explain why individuals might make certain decisions under the influence of a group that they would not have made alone. This kind of personality change — a shift based on group membership — is covered under the topic of social identity theory.

Social Identity Theory

Psychologists Henri Tajfel and John Turner studied the effects of group membership on self-perception. They formulated social identity theory, which seeks to explain the relationship between group membership and the reinforcement of individual qualities such as pride and self-esteem.

According to Tajfel and Turner, individuals gravitate toward groups that are composed of people they admire or with whom they agree on important matters. Group members perceive themselves, at least in part, through the lens of their membership; they see themselves reflected by other members.

People who belong to groups are linked and governed by similarities. Group members’ self-identity is based on the shared attitudes, beliefs, and moral standards of the group. This explains why individuals in a group might act differently than they would act if they did not belong to the group. They behave as they believe a member of the group should behave, rather than acting out of personal motivation.

Another aspect of social identity theory is the tendency toward tribalism, or embracing “in-groups” while rejecting “out-groups.” The group socialization of an individual takes place in stages, according to Tajfel and Turner:

Categorization — Separating individuals based on characteristics such as ethnicity, occupation, or belief system
Social identification — Adopting the characteristics of a particular group
Social comparison — Seeking to draw favorable contrasts with other groups

Once individuals have thoroughly established their self-perception based on membership in an “in-group,” their mindset and behavior begin to reflect the expectations of the group.

In this way, individual social identity is sublimated to the group. Personal identity is exchanged for a sense of belonging, safety, and well-being.

Typical Social Psychology Curriculum

Social psychologists generally need to earn an advanced degree to work in clinical, counseling , or research contexts. Careers for psychology bachelor’s degree graduates are available in the fields of human resources, market analytics, and survey research. Graduates who go on to earn a master’s degree or higher, such as a PhD in psychology or a Doctor of Psychology (PsyD) degree, may become qualified to work as social psychologists.

The typical social psychology bachelor’s degree curriculum includes courses in psychological research methods, research design, and applied statistics as well as courses in psychological theory, such as in abnormal psychology and developmental psychology across the lifespan.

Some social psychology professionals work in academic settings, conducting research and teaching students, while others work in applied settings, such as in government agencies, nonprofit organizations, and private corporations. Social psychology professionals may also work as consultants, helping individuals and organizations understand and manage social dynamics in their environments.

Pursue a Career in Social Psychology

A career in social psychology feeds a passion for understanding what motivates human behavior, and it requires extensive training in empirical research methods. What social psychology is has everything to do with the expertise that researchers develop in human relationships, self-perception, group dynamics, leadership, and many other areas of psychology.

Social psychology research is vital across multiple disciplines, including business, healthcare, economics, political science, and education. Are you interested in becoming a social psychology professional and doing this important work? Become immersed in the study of human behavior and psychological research by earning a Maryville University online Bachelor of Arts in Psychology .

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.

“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.

Author: Jeremy Dean

Psychologist, Jeremy Dean, PhD is the founder and author of PsyBlog. He holds a doctorate in psychology from University College London and two other advanced degrees in psychology. He has been writing about scientific research on PsyBlog since 2004. He is also the author of the book "Making Habits, Breaking Habits" (Da Capo, 2013) and several ebooks. View all posts by Jeremy Dean

Join the free PsyBlog mailing list. No spam, ever.

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
2023 Verywell Mind 25
Mental Health in the Classroom
Editorial Process
Meet Our Review Board
Crisis Support

How Social Psychologists Conduct Their Research

Surveys, observations, and case studies provide necessary data

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

Cara Lustik is a fact-checker and copywriter.

Why Study Social Behavior?

Descriptive research, correlational research, experimental research.

Social psychology research methods allow psychologists a window into the causes for human behavior. They rely on a few well-established methods to research social psychology topics. These methods allow researchers to test hypotheses and theories as they look for relationships among different variables.

Why do people do the things they do? And why do they sometimes behave differently in groups? These questions are of interest not only to social psychologists, but to teachers, public policy-makers, healthcare administrators, or anyone who has ever watched a news story about a world event and wondered, “Why do people act that way?”

Which type of research is best? This depends largely on the subject the researcher is exploring, the resources available, and the theory or hypothesis being investigated.

Why study social behavior? Since so many "common sense" explanations exist for so many human actions, people sometimes fail to see the value in scientifically studying social behavior. However, it is important to remember that folk wisdom can often be surprisingly inaccurate and that the scientific explanations behind a behavior can be quite shocking.

Stanley Milgram's infamous obedience experiments are examples of how the results of an experiment can defy conventional wisdom.

If you asked most people if they would obey an authority figure even if it meant going against their moral code or harming another individual, they would probably emphatically deny that they would ever do such a thing. Yet Milgram's results revealed that all participants hurt another person simply because they were told to do so by an authority figure, with 65% delivering the highest voltage possible.

The scientific method is essential in studying psychological phenomena in an objective, empirical, analytical way. By employing the scientific method, researchers can see cause-and-effect relationships, uncover associations among factors, and generalize the results of their experiments to larger populations.

While common sense might tell us that opposites attract, that birds of a feather flock together, or that absence makes the heart grow fonder, psychologists can put such ideas to the test using various research methods to determine if there is any real truth to such folk wisdom.

The goal of descriptive research is to portray what already exists in a group or population.

One example of this type of research would be an opinion poll to find which political candidate people plan to vote for in an upcoming election. Unlike causal and relational studies, descriptive studies cannot determine if there is a relationship between two variables. They can only describe what exists within a given population.

An example of descriptive research is a survey of people's attitudes toward a particular social issue such as divorce, capital punishment, or gambling laws.

Types of Descriptive Research

Some of the most commonly used forms of descriptive research utilized by social psychologists include the following.

Surveys are probably one of the most frequently used types of descriptive research. Surveys usually rely on self-report inventories in which people fill out questionnaires about their own behaviors or opinions.

The advantage of the survey method is that it allows social psychology researchers to gather a large amount of data relatively quickly, easily, and cheaply.

The Observational Method

The observational method involves watching people and describing their behavior. Sometimes referred to as field observation, this method can involve creating a scenario in a lab and then watching how people respond or performing naturalistic observation in the subject's own environment.

Each type of observation has its own strengths and weaknesses. Researchers might prefer using observational methods in a lab in order to gain greater control over possible extraneous variables, while others might prefer using naturalistic observation in order to obtain greater ecological validity . However, lab observations tend to be more costly and difficult to implement than naturalistic observations.

Case Studies

A case study involves the in-depth observation of a single individual or group. Case studies can allow researchers to gain insight into things that are very rare or even impossible to reproduce in experimental settings.

The case study of Genie , a young girl who was horrifically abused and deprived of learning language during a critical developmental period, is one example of how a case study can allow social scientists to study phenomena that they otherwise could not reproduce in a lab.

Social psychologists use correlational research to look for relationships between variables. For example, social psychologists might carry out a correlational study looking at the relationship between media violence and aggression . They might collect data on how many hours of aggressive or violent television programs children watch each week and then gather data how on aggressively the children act in lab situations or in naturalistic settings.

Conducting surveys, directly observing behaviors, or compiling research from earlier studies are some of the methods used to gather data for correlational research. While this type of study can help determine if two variables have a relationship, it does not allow researchers to determine if one variable causes changes in another variable.

While the researcher in the previous example on media aggression and violence can use the results of their study to determine if there might be a relationship between the two variables, they cannot say definitively that watching television violence causes aggressive behavior.

Experimental research is the key to uncovering causal relationships between variables . In experimental research, the experimenter randomly assigns participants to one of two groups:

The control group : The control group receives no treatment and serves as a baseline.
The experimental group : Researchers manipulate the levels of some independent variable in the experimental group and then measure the effects.

Because researchers are able to control the independent variables, experimental research can be used to find causal relationships between variables.

So if psychologists wanted to establish a causal relationship between media violence and aggressive behavior, they would want to design an experiment to test this hypothesis. If the hypothesis was that playing violent video games causes players to respond more aggressively in social situations, they would want to randomly assign participants to two groups.

The control group would play a non-violent video game for a predetermined period of time while the experimental group would play a violent game for the same period of time.

Afterward, the participants would be placed in a situation where they would play a game against another opponent. In this game, they could either respond aggressively or non-aggressively. The researchers would then collect data on how often people utilized aggressive responses in this situation and then compare this information with whether these individuals were in the control or experimental group.

By using the scientific method, designing an experiment, collecting data, and analyzing the results, researchers can then determine if there is a causal relationship between media violence and violent behavior.

Why Social Research Methods Are Important

The study of human behavior is as complex as the behaviors themselves, which is why it is so important for social scientists to utilize empirical methods of selecting participants, collecting data, analyzing their findings, and reporting their results.

Haslam N, Loughnan S, Perry G. Meta-milgram: An empirical synthesis of the obedience experiments . Voracek M, ed. PLoS ONE . 2014;9(4):e93927. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0093927

Milgram S. Behavioral study of obedience . The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology . 1963;67(4):371-378. doi:10.1037/h0040525

Curtiss S, Fromkin V, Krashen S, Rigler D, Rigler M. The linguistic development of genie . Language . 1974;50(3):528.

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

Skip to main content
Skip to primary sidebar

IResearchNet

Social Psychology Research Methods

Social psychology research methods encompass the intricate strategies and techniques employed by investigators to assess and investigate various variables while formulating and examining hypotheses. The central objective of social psychology research is typically to develop and assess causal theories. The emphasis on causation lies at the heart of the field’s overarching mission: to elucidate phenomena by placing them under the purview of general causal principles and to elucidate how adverse societal circumstances can be transformed by modifying their causal precursors. Naturally, there are instances in individual research endeavors where the primary aim is simply to describe existing states of affairs or to create and refine measurement instruments, and these may not directly engage with causal inquiries. Nevertheless, it is prudent to view such studies as integral components of an overarching research endeavor devoted to the construction and refinement of causal theories.

Academic Writing, Editing, Proofreading, And Problem Solving Services

Get 10% off with 24start discount code.

Expanding upon this, it’s worth emphasizing that social psychology research methods encompass a wide array of tools and techniques. These include experimental designs, surveys, field studies, and observational methods, among others. Each approach has its unique strengths and limitations, making it essential for researchers to choose the most appropriate method depending on the research question and objectives.

Furthermore, the pursuit of causal explanations is a cornerstone of social psychology. Researchers seek to unravel the intricate web of factors that contribute to various social phenomena, aiming to discern the cause-and-effect relationships that underlie human behavior, attitudes, and interactions. By doing so, social psychologists strive to offer insights into the fundamental processes that govern our social world and, crucially, to propose interventions that can ameliorate societal challenges by targeting their causal roots.

In essence, social psychology is a dynamic field where rigorous research methods are harnessed to uncover the intricate causal dynamics that shape our social reality. Whether investigating the impact of social media on well-being, the origins of prejudice and discrimination, or the determinants of pro-social behavior, social psychologists are united by their commitment to understanding the causal forces that drive human social behavior and the potential for positive change through this understanding.

Autobiographical Narratives
Bogus Pipeline
Content Analysis
Control Condition
Cross-Lagged Panel Correlation
Demand Characteristics
Ecological Validity
Falsification
Forced Compliance Technique
Implicit Association Test
Lost Letter Technique
Meta-Analysis
Mundane Realism
Nonexperimental Designs
Operationalization
Order Effects
Path Analysis
Placebo Effect
Quasi-Experimental Design
Semantic Differential
Social Relations Model
Sociometric Status
Structural Equation Modeling
Twin Studies

In assessing the effectiveness of various research approaches in advancing causal theories, Cook and Campbell (1979) introduced four critical criteria, or forms of validity, to guide researchers. These criteria are pivotal in ensuring the rigor and reliability of empirical investigations. It’s essential to recognize that while statistical conclusion validity is somewhat independent of research methods, the remaining three forms of validity are intricately intertwined with the choice of research methodologies.

Statistical Conclusion Validity: Statistical conclusion validity hinges on the judicious application of appropriate statistical tests and the use of sufficiently robust sample sizes. This aspect of validity is less contingent on the specific research method chosen and more on the soundness of statistical analysis. It ensures that the results of a study accurately reflect the underlying data and statistical relationships.
Internal Validity: Internal validity pertains to the degree of confidence one can have in asserting that the independent variable (referred to as ‘x’) indeed exerted a causal influence on the dependent variable (‘y’) within a particular study. It assesses the extent to which the research design effectively isolates the variable of interest and minimizes the impact of extraneous factors that could confound the results.
Construct Validity: Construct validity assesses the extent to which concrete variables (‘x’ and ‘y’) in a study align with the abstract theoretical constructs (‘X’ and ‘Y’) they are intended to represent. In essence, it measures the confidence with which a causal relationship can be inferred between these abstract constructs. Establishing construct validity is crucial for ensuring that the empirical measures accurately capture the theoretical concepts under investigation.
External Validity: External validity manifests in two distinct forms, contingent on the research’s intended application. In particularistic research, designed to apply directly to specific settings and populations (e.g., public opinion surveys targeting a particular state or country’s voting-age population), external validity assesses the extent to which the findings can be generalized from the sample to the broader population. In universalistic research, conducted to test general causal theories, external validity raises broader questions about the generalizability of effects across diverse groups, settings, or cultures.

The methodology employed in research is shaped by numerous factors, including the research setting, the studied population, the research design, and the data collection techniques utilized. Social psychology highly values methodological diversity, recognizing that theoretical predictions corroborated by multiple methods hold greater strength. Despite this emphasis on diversity, laboratory experiments remain the predominant and defining research method in the field. This method, employed in a substantial majority of published research, provides a controlled environment that allows researchers to manipulate variables systematically and investigate causal relationships with precision.

Laboratory Research Methods

The laboratory, as a research setting in social psychology, is distinguished by its remarkable flexibility. It serves as a canvas upon which researchers can meticulously craft and orchestrate a sequence of events tailored to their specific study objectives. The inherent advantage of conducting research in a controlled laboratory environment lies in the substantial degree of control afforded to the investigator. This control facilitates the seamless implementation of experimental designs, which necessitate precise manipulation and regulation of the experiences encountered by each participant.

In theory, the choice of research setting and the composition of the studied population are independent considerations. However, in practice, laboratory studies in social psychology often employ college students as their primary participants. This tendency stems from practical considerations, such as accessibility, convenience, and resource constraints. College students are readily available, more inclined to participate in research studies, and often represent a convenient sample for academic researchers.

Nevertheless, this predilection for utilizing well-educated and generally attentive young adults in laboratory research does introduce potential limitations, particularly concerning external validity. External validity pertains to the extent to which research findings can be generalized beyond the specific sample and settings employed in a study. Relying primarily on college students may limit the generalizability of findings, as this group may not be representative of the broader population in terms of age, education, socio-economic status, and cultural diversity.

It is important to note, however, that these limitations are not inherent to the laboratory setting itself but are more closely linked to the demographic characteristics of the participants. Social psychologists are increasingly cognizant of these limitations and are actively working to address them by diversifying their participant pools. By conducting studies with a more varied range of individuals from different age groups, backgrounds, and cultural contexts, researchers aim to enhance the external validity of their findings. This ongoing effort underscores the field’s commitment to ensuring that the insights derived from laboratory research are applicable and relevant to a broader spectrum of society.

Laboratory Experiments

Laboratory experiments represent the cornerstone of social psychology research, offering a controlled environment for rigorous investigations (Aronson, Ellsworth, Carlsmith, & Gonzalez, 1990). These experiments employ an experimental design in which the independent variable is systematically manipulated, resulting in the random assignment of participants to different groups. This approach ensures a high level of internal validity, as it effectively isolates the variable of interest and minimizes potential confounding factors. However, lab experimentation has faced criticism primarily related to construct validity, particularly concerning the authenticity of the experimental context.

Laboratory experiments in social psychology can be categorized into three main types (Judd, Smith, & Kidder, 1991):

Scenario or Impact Studies: These studies often feature classic social psychology experiments. Researchers orchestrate scenarios where confederates, posing as fellow participants, deliberately make inaccurate judgments or simulate emergencies to explore hypotheses about social influence on participants’ responses. When executed effectively, scenario studies immerse participants in realistic experiences, blurring the line between experimental and real-life situations. Nevertheless, questions about construct validity may arise, as participants may question the authenticity of the scenarios, suspecting they are contrived as part of the experiment. The use of deception in such studies raises ethical and practical considerations that require careful consideration (T. D. Cook, in Judd, Smith, & Kidder, 1991).
Judgment Studies: In these experiments, participants evaluate complex stimuli, often involving individuals or social groups, and report their judgments, evaluations, inferences, or other reactions. A common focus of judgment studies is the examination of stereotyping and prejudice, where participants assess information about an individual belonging to different social groups. The construct validity of judgment studies can vary. When participants perceive the task as meaningful and realistic, it can effectively capture their genuine reactions to individuals from different groups. However, if participants discern the research’s underlying purpose and react to it, construct validity may be compromised.
Performance Studies: Performance studies involve tasks where participants’ performance reveals underlying thoughts or emotions being studied. These studies often do not require explicit judgments but may involve tasks such as recalling information or rapidly categorizing words as positive or negative. Social cognition research frequently employs performance studies. In these experiments, hypotheses and expected responses are often less transparent to participants. Construct validity relies more on the rigorous validation of the data collection method itself, rather than participants’ perceptions of the study’s intentions.

In summary, laboratory experiments in social psychology provide a controlled platform for exploring causal relationships and psychological phenomena. While they offer a high degree of internal validity, concerns about construct validity, stemming from the artificiality of some experimental setups and participants’ awareness of the research context, are essential considerations. Researchers continually strive to strike a balance between experimental control and ecological validity to enhance the robustness and applicability of their findings in real-world contexts.

Laboratory Nonexperimental Studies

Laboratory nonexperimental studies represent another facet of social psychology research, leveraging the controlled environment of the laboratory to observe and analyze social phenomena without employing traditional experimental designs. While experimental research is often lauded for its capacity to enhance internal validity through systematic manipulation, nonexperimental studies conducted in the laboratory serve valuable purposes as well.

In these nonexperimental laboratory studies, researchers utilize the laboratory setting to establish specific conditions that allow participants to engage in experiences or facilitate detailed observations. Here are a few examples of how the laboratory environment can be harnessed for nonexperimental research:

Observational Studies: The laboratory can be configured to facilitate unobtrusive observations of social interactions. For instance, researchers may videotape two participants engaging in an informal get-acquainted conversation. Later, these videotapes can be meticulously coded to analyze verbal and nonverbal behaviors, shedding light on patterns of communication, social dynamics, or the emergence of specific behaviors in naturalistic settings.
Interaction and Group Studies: Small groups of participants can be brought into the laboratory to engage in various activities, such as problem-solving tasks or group discussions. Researchers can then closely observe and code these interactions to explore topics like leadership dynamics, decision-making processes, or the emergence of social norms within informal groups.

In these scenarios, the laboratory’s inherent flexibility and control are effectively employed to create specific conditions conducive to systematic observation and analysis. While no experimental manipulations are introduced, these studies yield valuable insights into the intricacies of human behavior and social interactions in controlled yet ecologically relevant settings.

Moreover, nonexperimental laboratory studies offer a bridge between the controlled conditions of the laboratory and the complexities of real-world social interactions. They provide an avenue for researchers to explore social phenomena and generate hypotheses that can later be tested through experimental research or extended to field studies for further validation. Consequently, nonexperimental laboratory studies enrich the toolkit of social psychologists, enabling a comprehensive understanding of human behavior and social dynamics across a spectrum of research methods and settings.

Nonlaboratory Research Methods

Nonlaboratory research methods, often referred to as field research, offer a distinct approach in the realm of social psychology, where the researcher’s ability to exert control over events is notably reduced compared to laboratory settings. While experimental designs in nonlaboratory settings may be challenging to implement, these methods provide opportunities to explore a wide range of independent and dependent variables, allowing for the investigation of critical and meaningful social phenomena. However, they also come with their own set of challenges related to construct validity and the complexity of real-life contexts.

Here are some key considerations and characteristics of nonlaboratory research in social psychology:

Construct Validity: In nonlaboratory settings, researchers can investigate important psychological variables, such as the influence of role models on behavior, the impact of bystander numbers on helping behavior, or the relationship between self-concept and psychological adjustment to a diagnosis of cancer. These studies can yield valuable insights into real-world behaviors and experiences. However, construct validity may vary depending on the specific research context, and researchers must take care to ensure that their measures accurately capture the intended theoretical constructs.
Complexity of Real Life: Nonlaboratory research is conducted within the intricacies of real-life environments, which are inherently complex and subject to a multitude of potentially confounding variables. Researchers must grapple with the unpredictability and diversity of human behavior and social interactions in these settings.
External Validity: While nonlaboratory research is often assumed to possess higher external validity or generalizability than laboratory research, this is not necessarily the case. Nonlaboratory settings themselves can vary significantly, from a street corner to an industrial lunchroom to a hospital emergency room, each with its unique characteristics and populations. The external validity of a study’s findings in one nonlaboratory setting does not automatically extend to other nonlaboratory contexts. Replication across diverse settings is the ultimate test of external validity, similar to laboratory findings.

In summary, nonlaboratory research methods in social psychology provide a valuable complement to laboratory research by offering insights into real-world behavior and experiences. These methods enable the exploration of crucial social phenomena but come with the challenge of navigating the complexity and unpredictability of noncontrolled settings. Researchers must be diligent in addressing construct validity and recognize that the generalizability of findings is contingent on replication across a variety of nonlaboratory contexts. Through a combination of laboratory and nonlaboratory research, social psychologists aim to develop a comprehensive understanding of human behavior and its societal implications.

Field Experiments

Field experiments represent a powerful approach to experimental research in social psychology conducted outside the controlled confines of the laboratory. While they present logistical challenges, they offer numerous advantages and insights into real-world behaviors and social phenomena. Here are key points about field experiments:

Realistic Context: Field experiments are designed to investigate social phenomena in natural, real-life settings. Researchers construct situations that mimic genuine circumstances, allowing for the examination of behaviors and reactions as they naturally occur. For instance, a study on bystanders offering help to a person in need may involve simulating a roadside breakdown to assess the impact of interventions, such as community responsibility billboards, on the frequency of assistance offers.
Experimental Design: Field experiments maintain a high degree of internal validity through the use of experimental designs. This entails systematically manipulating variables of interest and randomly assigning participants (or in this case, bystanders) to different experimental conditions. Randomization ensures that groups exposed to various manipulations are equivalent, reducing the influence of confounding factors.
Construct Validity: Field experiments benefit from construct validity because the manipulations and measurements are grounded in meaningful and realistic contexts. Researchers strive to ensure that the interventions and measures accurately capture the theoretical constructs under investigation, enhancing the relevance and authenticity of the study.
External Validity in Particularistic Research: Field experiments conducted in settings and populations of direct interest exhibit high external validity in particularistic research. For instance, if a field experiment on the effects of different working conditions on productivity occurs within an actual industrial setting, the findings are highly applicable to that specific context and population.
Considerations in Universalistic Research: In universalistic research, it’s essential to recognize that nonlaboratory settings vary considerably. The fact that a field experiment was conducted outside the laboratory does not automatically guarantee broad generalizability. Each unique setting and population may yield different results, emphasizing the importance of replication and contextual awareness.

In summary, field experiments in social psychology bridge the gap between controlled laboratory research and real-world social interactions. They offer the advantage of high internal validity while capturing the richness and complexity of genuine social situations. However, researchers must be cautious about the limitations of generalizability, as findings from one field experiment may not necessarily apply universally. Rigorous replication and a nuanced understanding of the specific context are crucial for drawing robust conclusions in field experiments.

Quasi-Experiments

Quasi-experimental designs offer a middle ground between true experimental designs and nonexperimental research methods, providing a way to investigate causal relationships with some control over variables but without the stringent demands of random assignment. Here are some key points about quasi-experiments:

Internal Validity: Quasi-experimental designs can help mitigate certain threats to internal validity, but they do not eliminate them entirely, as true experiments do. While they lack the randomized assignment of participants to different groups, they still involve manipulation of the independent variable to some extent. This manipulation allows researchers to draw causal inferences, but the presence of confounding variables remains a concern, potentially impacting the degree of internal validity.
Control and Implementation: Quasi-experiments impose fewer demands for strict control compared to true experiments. This flexibility can make them more practical and feasible to conduct outside the laboratory. Researchers can manipulate the independent variable in real-world settings, such as implementing an ad campaign in one city while using another comparable city as a control.
Manipulation without Random Assignment: In quasi-experiments, manipulation of the independent variable occurs without random assignment. This means that participants are not randomly assigned to different conditions or groups, raising concerns about the equivalence of the groups and the potential influence of confounding variables. Researchers must carefully consider the potential impact of these confounds when interpreting results.
Practical Applications: Quasi-experiments are often used in applied settings where it may be challenging or impractical to employ strict experimental control. For example, researchers may investigate the effectiveness of public health campaigns, educational interventions, or policy changes using quasi-experimental designs. These studies can provide valuable insights into the real-world impact of interventions.
Similar Considerations to Field Experiments: Many considerations that apply to field experiments, such as construct validity and external validity, also apply to quasi-experiments. Researchers must ensure that their manipulations and measurements are meaningful and realistic. Additionally, the generalizability of findings from quasi-experiments may vary depending on the specific context and population under study.

In summary, quasi-experimental designs strike a balance between experimental control and real-world applicability. They offer a way to investigate causal relationships in settings where random assignment may not be feasible. While they can provide valuable insights into cause-and-effect relationships, researchers must be mindful of potential confounding variables and limitations in internal validity. Careful design and analysis are essential to draw meaningful conclusions from quasi-experimental research.

Survey Research

Survey research is a fundamental methodology employed in various social sciences, including sociology, political science, and even within the domain of social psychology. This approach is instrumental in investigating a wide array of social phenomena and understanding the attitudes, behaviors, and perceptions of individuals within a population. Here are key aspects of survey research:

Data Collection from Representative Samples: Survey research typically involves the collection of data from a representative sample of the population of interest or, in some cases, the entire population. For instance, researchers might survey voters in a specific state or all employees of a particular company. The goal is to gather insights that can be generalized to a larger population.
Self-Report Data Collection: Surveys rely on self-report data collection methods, where participants respond to questions or statements about their attitudes, beliefs, behaviors, or experiences. This can be accomplished through various means, including personal interviews, telephone interviews, or written self-administered questionnaires. Each data collection mode has its unique strengths and weaknesses, impacting factors like cost and data quality.
Nonexperimental Design: Survey research is typically nonexperimental in nature, meaning that researchers do not manipulate variables as they would in experimental studies. Instead, survey questions are designed to measure existing attitudes, behaviors, or conditions. While this limits internal validity in terms of establishing causal relationships, survey research excels at exploring associations and patterns within populations.
Construct Validity Challenges: Construct validity in survey research can be challenging due to the method of data collection, which relies on self-report. Participants may introduce biases into their responses, consciously or unconsciously, leading to potential inaccuracies. For instance, respondents may provide socially desirable answers rather than revealing their true beliefs or behaviors.
External Validity: Surveys often demonstrate high external validity, particularly in particularistic research where the focus is on generalizing findings from the sample to a specific target population. This makes survey research a valuable tool for understanding the attitudes and behaviors of specific groups, such as voters in a state or employees within an organization.

In summary, survey research plays a vital role in social sciences by providing a means to collect data on a wide scale and explore the perspectives of individuals within a population. While it may lack the experimental control of laboratory studies, surveys offer valuable insights into social phenomena, attitudes, and behaviors. Researchers must be mindful of potential biases and limitations in construct validity but can leverage the high external validity of survey findings to inform their investigations and policymaking.

Naturalistic Observational Studies

Naturalistic observational studies are a valuable research method in social psychology that involve observing and documenting naturally occurring social behaviors in their real-world settings. These studies provide a unique perspective on human behavior by capturing actions and interactions as they naturally unfold. Here are some key characteristics of naturalistic observational studies:

Realistic Settings and Populations: Naturalistic observational studies take place in realistic settings, often within the context of everyday life. Researchers venture into environments where people naturally engage in social behaviors, such as schools, workplaces, public spaces, or homes. This approach allows for the study of human behavior in its natural context.
High Construct Validity: Construct validity in naturalistic observational studies is typically high. This is because measurements are taken in authentic, real-world settings and populations, providing a more genuine representation of social behaviors. Researchers have the opportunity to observe and document behaviors as they naturally occur, minimizing the influence of artificial or controlled conditions.
Lack of Experimental Design: One key characteristic of naturalistic observational studies is the absence of experimental design. Unlike laboratory experiments, researchers do not manipulate variables or introduce interventions. Instead, they act as passive observers, documenting behaviors without interference. This lack of experimental control can limit internal validity, making it challenging to establish causal relationships between variables.
Examples of Naturalistic Observations: An example provided in your question illustrates this approach: researchers interested in understanding the dynamics of intergroup relations in an elementary school might discreetly observe the seating patterns in the school lunchroom. By documenting where students of different racial backgrounds choose to sit, researchers gain insights into the extent of racial segregation in a natural, unaltered context.
Rich Descriptive Data: Naturalistic observational studies yield rich descriptive data that can inform theories, generate hypotheses, and provide valuable insights into human behavior. Researchers often focus on qualitative and quantitative descriptions of behaviors, interactions, and contextual factors.
Ethical Considerations: Ethical considerations are paramount in naturalistic observational studies. Researchers must ensure that their observations are unobtrusive and respectful of individuals’ privacy. In some cases, obtaining informed consent may be necessary, particularly when studying sensitive or private behaviors.

In summary, naturalistic observational studies offer a window into the real-world dynamics of social behavior, providing a high level of construct validity. While they lack the experimental control found in laboratory experiments, these studies contribute valuable insights to our understanding of human behavior in its natural context. Researchers must carefully balance the benefits of authentic observations with ethical considerations and the limitations in establishing causal relationships.

Analysis of Archival Data

Analysis of archival data is a research method in social psychology that involves the examination of pre-existing records or data sources to test research hypotheses and gain insights into social phenomena. This approach leverages information stored in official or unofficial archives, such as government records, newspaper articles, library circulation records, and more. Here are key characteristics and considerations related to the analysis of archival data:

Objective and Comprehensive Coverage: Archival data provides an objective and often comprehensive view of a population of interest. Unlike self-report measures, which rely on participants’ responses, archival data can offer a complete and unfiltered representation of real-life outcomes. Researchers can draw from a wide range of sources to access information on various social phenomena.
Examples of Archival Data Analysis: An example provided in your question illustrates this method: researchers interested in the hypothesis that heat increases aggression may examine official weather records and crime statistics. By analyzing these data sources, researchers can investigate whether there is a correlation between hot weather and an increase in homicides. Archival data analysis allows researchers to explore relationships between variables by utilizing historical or pre-existing records.
Construct Validity Considerations: Construct validity in archival data analysis can be a concern. This issue arises when the archival measures do not directly correspond to the psychological constructs of interest. For instance, the legal definition of homicide may not precisely align with the psychological concept of aggression. Researchers must carefully assess whether the archival data accurately capture the variables under investigation.
Nonexperimental Designs and Internal Validity: Archival data analyses typically involve nonexperimental designs, meaning that researchers do not manipulate variables or introduce interventions. As a result, the internal validity of these studies tends to be low. Establishing causal relationships between variables can be challenging in the absence of experimental control.
Strengths and Limitations: The strengths of archival data analysis include its ability to access historical and real-world data, offering insights into social phenomena beyond self-report measures. Archival data can provide valuable information about long-term trends, patterns, and historical events. However, researchers must contend with the limitations of construct validity and the challenge of demonstrating causal relationships.
Ethical Considerations: Ethical considerations in archival data analysis involve respecting the privacy and confidentiality of individuals whose data is included in the archives. Researchers should adhere to ethical guidelines and obtain any necessary permissions or approvals when working with archival data.

In summary, the analysis of archival data is a valuable research method in social psychology for investigating social phenomena through the examination of existing records and data sources. While it provides objective and comprehensive information, researchers must carefully assess construct validity and recognize the limitations in establishing causality due to the absence of experimental control. Archival data analysis complements other research methods and offers unique opportunities for studying historical and real-world social dynamics.

Research without Primary Data Collection

Research without primary data collection is a valuable approach in social psychology that involves the analysis and synthesis of existing studies to draw conclusions and make informed insights. This method encompasses meta-analysis and computer simulation, each serving distinct purposes within the research process.

Meta-Analysis: Meta-analysis involves the quantitative synthesis of multiple primary studies on a specific topic. Researchers collect data from previously conducted studies and analyze it collectively to draw more precise and objective conclusions. For example, if numerous studies have explored sex differences in helping behavior, a meta-analysis can provide an overall assessment of the differences and identify factors that influence these variations. Meta-analysis enhances construct validity by examining multiple operationalizations of constructs and bolsters external validity by including various settings and participant populations.
Computer Simulation: Computer simulation is a method for exploring the implications of a theory by creating a computer program that embodies the theory’s assumptions. The program generates predictions based on specified conditions, allowing researchers to gain insights into the theory’s outcomes in complex scenarios. Computer simulation is particularly useful when theories are too intricate for intuitive prediction. However, it is essential to note that computer simulation is not a substitute for data collection. Instead, it assists in deducing a theory’s implications, which then become research hypotheses to be tested using empirical data. If the hypotheses do not align with the data, researchers may need to modify or discard the theory.

In social psychology, laboratory experimentation remains the predominant method. However, researchers recognize the value of diverse methods and appreciate that the most robust research findings are those that can be replicated across different settings and populations, using various research techniques. This emphasis on methodological diversity ensures a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of social phenomena.

In summary, research without primary data collection, such as meta-analysis and computer simulation, offers complementary approaches to traditional empirical studies. These methods provide valuable insights, enhance the precision of conclusions, and contribute to the robustness of research findings. The integration of multiple research methods and replication across diverse contexts strengthens the foundations of social psychology research.

Bibliography:

Abelson, R. P. (1995). Statistics as principled argument. Hillsdale. NJ: Erlbaum.
Aronson. E., Ellsworth. P. C., Carlsmith, J. M., & Gonzales. M. H. (1990). Methods of research in social psychology (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Judd. C. M., Smith, E. R., & Kidder. L. H. (1991). Research methods in social relations (6th ed.). Fort Worth. TX: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Mook. D. G. (1980). In defense of external invalidity. American Psychologist, 38, 379-388.
Reis, H. T., & Judd, C. M. (Eds.). (in press). Handbook of research methods in social psychology. Cambridge. UK: Cambridge University Press.

15 Social Psychology Examples

social psychology examples and definition

Traced back to the late 19th and early 20th century, social psychology is a field of empirical science that attempts to answer questions about human behavior and how it is affected by social interaction.

The focus is to identify thoughts, feelings, mental states, and behaviors, and explain how they both influence and are influenced in social situations and interactions between people.

Examples of social psychology include studies of group behavior (e.g. the Stanford prison experiment) , delayed gratification (e.g. the Marshmallow test), and the role of observation in learning (e.g. Bandura’s social learning theory).

Social Psychology Definition and Overview

Social psychology explores how humans are fundamentally social beings. It explores how sociality affects our behaviors and values.

As Goethals (2007) explains:

“Basic questions about social behavior go back to the ancients. Are men and women capable of governing themselves? Is their behavior governed by internal dispositions or the requirements of society and culture? Should we be optimistic or pessimistic about human potential and human performance? Are people rational or irrational? What hope is there for independent thought and action in the face of group pressures?” (p. 19)

While these are only a handful of questions that social psychologists have sought to study throughout the last 100 years, the relatively young scientific field contains multitudes of scientists who can be credited. Some key founders included:

Norman Triplett (1861-1934): Triplett has been said by some to be a point of reference for the birth of social psychology. His work in 1895 included hist studies of human competitiveness. He noticed that the presence of other people (in this case, sport cycling) enhanced the performance of competitors greatly.
Floyd Allport (1980-1979): Allport is also credited with advancing studies in behaviorism . He explored methods of stimulus and response in data collection.
Kurt Lewin (1890-1947) Lewin is acclaimed as the father of action research. He developed equations to explain human behavior. His method of linking theory with concrete data advanced research on group norms in various social systems (Goethals, 2007, pp. 3-9).

Key Theories in Social Psychology

Additional theories:

Self-determination theory
Learned helplessness theory
Locus of control theory
Labeling theory of deviance
Cultural deviance theory
Attribution theory
Schemata theory
Social exchange theory
Social penetration theory

Examples of Social Psychology

1. the stanford prison experiment.

Conducted by Philip Zimbardo in 1971, the Stanfor Prison Experiment was a shocking reveal of how humans can be cruel to other humans when placed in positions of power.

The study examined how the research participants (who were university students) adapted to roles of power and powerlessness within a simulated prison environment.

Despite knowing they were randomly assigned positions, the people assigned to the prison guard positions became increasingly cruel to the participants assigned prisoner roles.

2. The Milgram Experiment

The Milgram experiment was an experiment that measured the willingness of participants to obey an authority figure who instructed them to do immoral things. For this experiment, it was electric shocks.

The research participants were told that they were participating in a study on learning and memory. They were asked to play the role of a “teacher” who was supposed to administer an electric shock to a “learner” every time the learner made a mistake in a memory test. They weren’t actually shocking anyone – the people being shocked were actors.

During the study, the “learner” began to protest and show signs of distress while the authority figure (the experimenter) encouraged the participants to continue with the shocks. Milgram found that most participants continued to obey the experimenter and administer the shocks.

This study not only raised ethical concerns in psychological research (i.e. for the flaws in their research participant debriefing ), it also makes us think deeply about the nature of the human condition and why dictators manage to convince entire armies to fight for immoral causes.

3. Asch Conformity Experiments

Conducted by Solomon Asch in the 1950s, this experiment studied how people conform to group norms, even if they personally believe the group norm is wrong.

In this experiment, a group of participants were shown three numbered lines of different lengths and asked to identify the longest of them all. However, only one true participant was present in every group and the rest were actors, most of whom told the wrong answer.

Results showed that the participants went for the wrong answer, even though they knew which line was the longest one in the first place. When the participants were asked why they identified the wrong one, they said that they didn’t want to be branded as strange or peculiar.

This study goes to show that there are situations in life when people prefer fitting in than being right.

4. Robbers Cave Experiment

The Robbers Cave experiment (1945) investigated intergroup conflict and cooperation between two groups of boys at a summer camp.

The researchers formed two groups of 11-year-old boys who did not know each other and had similar backgrounds. The groups were kept separate. Then, two situations were set up:

A competitive situation was set up whereby the researchers introduced competitions such as baseball, tug-of-war, and treasure hunts. In this phase, the groups developed in-group and out-group mentalities, even to the point of verbally and physically attacking members of the other group.
A cooperative situation was also set up whereby both groups were required to work together to achieve a common goal (an example is fixing a water supply problem). During this phase, the boys began to develop friendships across group boundaries.

The Robbers Cave experiment introduced a few key insights. One was that intergroup conflict arises even among relatively heterogenous groups. Another was that cooperation and shared goals can help reduce group prejudice.

5. The Kitty Genovese Case

The Kitty Genovese Case is a phenomenon where individuals tend not to intervene in an emergency situation when others are present.

Kitty Genovese was murdered in the neighborhood of Kew Gardens, New York in 1694. Despite there being up to 38 witnesses and onlookers in the vicinity of the crime scene, none of them took action to stop the murder or seek help.

This tragic event served as a catalyst for social psychologists Bibb Latane and John Darley to formulate the social psychology concept of bystander effect or bystander apathy. They conducted an experimental study to test bystander intervention, asking participants to complete a questionnaire inside a room with smoke coming out from under the door.

Participants were either alone or with two other participants who were actually actors or confederates in the study.

The study found that participants who were alone in the room reported the smoke faster than those who were with two passive others, suggesting that the more bystanders present in an emergency situation, the less likely someone will step up to help.

6. The Marshmallow Test

Conducted by Walter Mischel in the 1960s, the marshmallow experiment examined children’s ability to delay gratification.

The test involved presenting a marshmallow to children aged 4-6 and asking them to wait for 15 minutes before eating it to receive a second marshmallow.

Roughly one-third of the 600 participants managed to delay gratification and were later found to have more success in life, including higher SAT scores, supporting the self-control theory.

However, a 2018 replication study by Tyler Watts and colleagues, which had a larger group of participants (900) and a more diverse representation of the population in terms of race and ethnicity, challenged the classic marshmallow experiment. The study found that the ability to wait for the second marshmallow was influenced more by the economic background and social status of the participants rather than just their willpower.

7. The Blue-eyed/Brown-eyed Exercise

Conducted by Jane Elliott in the 1960s, this experiment examined how people respond to discrimination and prejudice .

Third-grade teacher Jane Elliott conducted an experiment in her class. The experiment involved dividing the class into two groups, the blue-eyed children and the brown-eyed children.

For a day, Elliott gave preferential treatment to the blue-eyed students, showering them with extra attention and rewards. The next day, the brown-eyed children were given the same treatment.

The outcome of the experiment was that whichever group received preferential treatment scored higher on quizzes and participated more frequently in class, while the group that was discriminated against felt humiliated, performed poorly on tests, and became uncertain when answering questions in class.

This experiment shows how prejudice and mistreatment causes damage to people’s self-confidence and ability to contribute to social situations.

8. The Bobo Doll Experiment

Conducted by Albert Bandura in 1961, this experiment studied how children learn through observation and imitation.

In the Bobo Doll Experiment, children were divided into three groups:

The first group was shown a video where an adult was aggressive toward the Bobo Doll.
The second group was shown a video in which an adult play with the Bobo Doll.
The third group served as the control group where no video was shown.

The children were then led to a room with different kinds of toys, including the Bobo Doll that they saw in the video.

Results showed that the children tend to imitate the adults in whichever video they watched:

Children who were presented the aggressive model in the video acted aggressively toward the Bobo Doll.
Children who were presented the passive model showed less aggression.

While the Bobo Doll Experiment can no longer be replicated because of ethical concerns, it has laid out the foundations of social learning theory and helped us understand the concept of observational learning .

9. The False Consensus Effect

This phenomenon studied by social psychologists refers to the tendency for people to overestimate the degree to which others share their beliefs and behaviors.

This leads us to spout our own views in social situations expecting others to agree with us when, in reality, they are probably less likely to agree than we think.

There are many social psychology studies into the false consensus effect . One example is a study by Alicke and Largo (1995) where participants were asked to rate their own attitudes and the attitudes of others towards various issues, such as the death penalty.

he researchers found that participants consistently overestimated the extent to which others agreed with their own attitudes.

10. The Halo Effect

The Halo Effect illustrates how a positive perception of one attribute of a person can spill over to other attributes.

In product ads, for example, attractive celebrities are often viewed as intelligent and knowledgeable about the product, despite not having the technical expertise.

Edward Thorndike first introduced the concept of the Halo Effect in a classic study in the early 1900s. He asked military commanders to evaluate their subordinates based on various traits, such as intelligence, dependability, leadership, and physical appearance.

The results showed that high ratings of a particular trait led to high ratings of other traits, creating an overall positive impression or “halo effect.” Conversely, a negative rating in one trait was linked to negative ratings in other traits.

Subsequent experiments on the Halo Effect have supported Thorndike’s original theory, revealing that our perception of a person’s overall personality is significantly influenced by the trait we focus on.

See more famous experiments in psychology

Poster Presentations

Positive bystander intervention training for allies to gender minorities

Presenter Information

Nissa Berle , Oberlin College

Science Center: Bent Corridor

Document Type

4-26-2024 12:00 PM

4-26-2024 2:00 PM

Positive psychology seeks to improve wellbeing beyond the absence of distress, but interventions often do not address social environmental causes. Since belonging is a protective factor against mental health challenges, gender minorities’ (trans, non-binary, etc.) wellbeing would benefit from allies actively working to increase environmental belonging for the community. However, some potential allies do not know how or are afraid to act. To address a gap in research in training allies to increase environmental belonging, this study tested a positive bystander intervention training. All participants (N = 109) first viewed a positive bystander training. Participants were then presented with an example scenario in one of three conditions: 1) a trans woman with an empathic joy question, 2 a trans woman with a control question, and 3) a disabled woman with a control question. At both time points all participants wrote a response to scenarios about gender minorities and rated their bystander self-efficacy. There was an interaction between condition and Time 1 and Time 2 self-efficacy: participants in the disabled control condition had higher self-efficacy at Time 2, but there were no other significant differences. It is possible this positive bystander training is more effective at increasing bystander self-efficacy for allies to people with disabilities than gender minorities. Written responses were coded for themes. Themes included 1) connecting people to appropriate resources, 2) conversation, and 3) not emphasizing gender identity. Future research can create a more neutral control question and explore intersections with other identities (e.g., race).

Positive psychology, Bystander training, Gender minorities, Allyship

Recommended Citation

Berle, Nissa, "Positive bystander intervention training for allies to gender minorities" (2024). Research Symposium . 8. https://digitalcommons.oberlin.edu/researchsymp/2024/posters/8

Project Mentor(s)

Rebecca Totton, Psychology

This document is currently not available here.

Advanced Search

Notify me via email or RSS
Collections
Document Types
Disciplines

Author Corner

Submit Your Work
Office of Undergraduate Research
Oberlin College Libraries
Liberal Arts Research Commons

Home | About | FAQ | My Account | Accessibility Statement

Privacy Copyright

IMAGES

Social Psychology research methods
Sample Research Questions
Examples of research questions in clinical education
Chapter 10: Research
👍 Social psychology surveys. When to Use Surveys in Psychological Research. 2019-03-04
Social Psychology Review

VIDEO

Social Psychology Research Video
Invitation to Learning for Unit Two of Social Psychology
Methods of Social Psychology: Exploring Sociometry
Practical Issues
PMS: Social Work Lecture-10 Paper-2 ll Social Research
GENDER ROLE IN SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY RE-SEARCH #mentalhealth #selfcare #mindfulness #psychology #shorts

COMMENTS

Social Psychology Research Topics
Choose a Sub-Topic. Social psychologists are interested in all aspects of social behavior. Some of the main areas of interest within the field include social cognition, social influence, and social relationships investigating subtopics such as conformity, groupthink, attitude formation, obedience, prejudice, and so on.
Psychology Research Questions: 80 Ideas For Your Next Project
Social psychology research topics and questions. Social psychology has roots as far back as the 18th century. In simple terms, it's the study of how behavior is influenced by the presence and behavior of others. ... Health psychology research question examples. Health psychology is a crucial field of study. Understanding how psychological ...
Social Psychology Research Topics For College Students In 2024
Research in this domain investigates the repercussions of poorly formed social bonds and seeks to answer questions about how relationships influence group behavior. Additionally, studies in social psychology dissect the elements contributing to attraction, shedding light on the intricate dynamics that shape our social bonds and interactions.
The 9 Major Research Areas in Social Psychology
Social influence: Social influence refers to the ways in which our opinions and behavior are affected by the presence of others.This includes studies on topics such as conformity, obedience, and social pressure. Social perception: Social perception refers to the ways in which we form impressions of other people.This includes research on topics including first impressions, stereotyping, and ...
10 Research Question Examples to Guide your Research Project
The first question asks for a ready-made solution, and is not focused or researchable. The second question is a clearer comparative question, but note that it may not be practically feasible. For a smaller research project or thesis, it could be narrowed down further to focus on the effectiveness of drunk driving laws in just one or two countries.
Research Question Examples ‍
A well-crafted research question (or set of questions) sets the stage for a robust study and meaningful insights. But, if you're new to research, it's not always clear what exactly constitutes a good research question. In this post, we'll provide you with clear examples of quality research questions across various disciplines, so that you can approach your research project with confidence!
Social Psychology: Definition, Theories, Scope, & Examples
Social psychology is the scientific study of how people's thoughts, feelings, beliefs, intentions, and goals are constructed within a social context by the actual or imagined interactions with others. It, therefore, looks at human behavior as influenced by other people and the conditions under which social behavior and feelings occur.
Social Psychology Research: Explanation and Examples
This research digs into questions like why some people are leaders and others are followers, or why we like some people right away but it takes longer to warm up to others. ... Examples of Social Psychology Research. Conformity Experiments: Imagine you're in a room where everyone is saying 2 + 2 equals 5. Even if you know it's not true, you ...
Social Psychology Research Topics
Groups tend to act differently from individuals, and specific individuals will act differently depending on the group they are in. Social psychology research topics about groups consider group dynamics, leadership (see above), group-think and decision-making, intra-group and inter-group conflict, identities (see below) and prejudices (see below).
1.3 Conducting Research in Social Psychology
H5P: TEST YOUR LEARNING: CHAPTER 1 DRAG THE WORDS - CLASSIC FINDINGS IN SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY. Read through each finding, taken from Table 1.5 in the chapter summary, and decide if you think the research evidence shows that it is either mainly true or mainly false by dragging the correct word into each box.
Research Methods in Social Psychology
2. Research Methods in Social Psychology. Social psychologists are interested in the ways that other people affect thought, emotion, and behavior. To explore these concepts requires scientific research methods. Following a brief overview of traditional research designs, this module introduces how complex experimental designs, field experiments ...
676 questions with answers in SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
Relevant answer. Lornah Ayako. Oct 17, 2023. Answer. Social psychology is a subfield of psychology that focuses on the influence of social factors on individuals' thoughts, feelings, and behaviors ...
1.3 Conducting Research in Social Psychology
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).
Social Experiments and Studies in Psychology
A social experiment is a type of research performed in psychology to investigate how people respond in certain social situations. In many of these experiments, the experimenters will include confederates who are people who act like regular participants but who are actually acting the part. Such experiments are often used to gain insight into ...
11.4: Research Methods in Social Psychology
This page titled 11.4: Research Methods in Social Psychology is shared under a CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by NOBA ( The Noba Project) . To explore these concepts requires special research methods. Following a brief overview of traditional research designs, this module introduces how complex experimental ...
What Is Social Psychology? Theories, Examples, and Definition
Social psychology is the study of how individual or group behavior is influenced by the presence and behavior of others. The APA defines social psychology as "the study of how an individual's thoughts, feelings, and actions are affected" by other people, whether "actual, imagined, or symbolically represented.".
Social Cognition Research Topics
Social Cognition Research Topics: Social cognition draws heavily on material within cognitive psychology and social psychology to examine the relationship between basic cognitive operations and fundamental social problems. In this respect, work in this domain has attempted to show that, during his or her lifetime, an individual's thoughts and ...
Social Psychology Experiments: 10 Of The Most Brilliant Studies
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.
Social Psychology Research Methods
Descriptive Research. Correlational Research. Experimental Research. Social psychology research methods allow psychologists a window into the causes for human behavior. They rely on a few well-established methods to research social psychology topics. These methods allow researchers to test hypotheses and theories as they look for relationships ...
Social Psychology Research Methods
Social psychology research methods encompass the intricate strategies and techniques employed by investigators to assess and investigate various variables while formulating and examining hypotheses. The central objective of social psychology research is typically to develop and assess causal theories. The emphasis on causation lies at the heart ...
15 Social Psychology Examples (2024)
Examples of social psychology include studies of group behavior (e.g. the Stanford prison experiment) , delayed gratification (e.g. the Marshmallow test), and the role of observation in learning (e.g. Bandura's social learning theory). ... While these are only a handful of questions that social psychologists have sought to study throughout ...
Frontiers in Social Psychology
Scott Eidelman. Justin Friesen. 2,335 views. 2 articles. A broad-scope, multidisciplinary journal covering the spectrum of social psychology, exploring how human behavior and development is affected by social interactions.
38 Social Psychology Interview Questions With Sample Answers
Here are eight common social psychology interview questions with sample answers: 1. How is general psychology different from social psychology? A potential employer may ask this question to gauge your understanding of the focus of your studies. While there are some similarities between the two, social psychology focuses on how humans interact ...
Digital Commons at Oberlin
Positive psychology seeks to improve wellbeing beyond the absence of distress, but interventions often do not address social environmental causes. Since belonging is a protective factor against mental health challenges, gender minorities' (trans, non-binary, etc.) wellbeing would benefit from allies actively working to increase environmental belonging for the community. However, some ...

11 social psychology research topics to explore in 2024

What is an example of social psychology research?

1. Attitudes and attitude change

2. Attachment and relationships

3. Authority and leadership

5. Prejudice

6. Self and social identity

7. Pro- and anti-social behavior

8. Social influence

9. Social cognition

10. Violence and aggression

11. Social representations

Get started today

Editor’s picks

Latest articles

Research Question Examples 🧑🏻‍🏫

Research Question Examples

Examples: Psychology

Examples: Business/Management

Examples: Education

Need a helping hand?

Examples: Healthcare

Examples: Computer Science

Remember, these are just examples…

Psst... there’s more!

You Might Also Like:

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Social Psychology: Definition, Theories, Scope, & Examples

Early Influences

Early Texts

Journal Development

Early Experiments

Later Developments

Example Theories

Bandura (1963) Social Learning Theory

Festinger (1950) – Cognitive Dissonance

Tajfel (1971) – Social Identity Theory

Weiner (1986) – Attribution Theory

Milgram (1963) – Shock Experiment

Haney, Banks, Zimbardo (1973) – Stanford Prison Experiment

Provides Clear Predictions

Emphasizes Objective Measurement

Empirical Evidence

Limitations

Ignores Biology

Superficial Snapshots of Social Processes

Social Psychology Research

Examples of Social Psychology Research

Why is it Important?

Origin of Social Psychology Research

Controversies in Social Psychology Research

Other Important Aspects of Social Psychology Research

Related Topics with Explanations

Psychology Unlocked

Attachment and Relationships

Attitudes and Attitude Change

Authority and Leadership

Pro- and Anti-Social Behaviour

Self and Social Identity

Social Cognition

Social Influence

Social Representations

1.3 Conducting Research in Social Psychology

The Importance of Scientific Research

Measuring Affect, Behavior, and Cognition

Social Neuroscience: Measuring Social Responses in the Brain

Observational Research

The Research Hypothesis

Correlational Research

Experimental Research

Factorial Research Designs

Deception in Social Psychology Experiments

Interpreting Research

Media Attributions

Share This Book

2 Research Methods in Social Psychology

Introduction

Research Methods in Social Psychology

Laboratory Research

Field Research