28 Psychological Experiments That Revealed Incredible and Uncomfortable Truths About Ourselves - Bored Panda PDF

Login
Art Photography Animals Funny Travel Illustration Comics DIY Parenting Challenge
SCIENCE 2 YEARS AGO
28 Psychological Experiments That Revealed

Incredible And Uncomfortable Truths About
Ourselves
278K views
James Caunt
Community member
Although we have always been fascinated with the workings of the mind and the reasons behind human
behavior, it wasn’t until the beginning of the 20th century that experiments in psychology took off.
Encompassing a range of areas, from anthropological studies to social behavior and the complex
biological processes occurring in the brain, the carefully controlled studies carried out in the name of
experimental psychology have taught us so much about the human condition and given us a deeper
understanding of why we act the way that we do.
Bored Panda has compiled a list of some of the most famous and thought-provoking psychology
experiments that have been carried out in the last century. From simple social experiments to complex
behavioral patterns that expose the workings of the subconscious and push the boundaries of ethics,
these weird and wonderful psychological experiments are sure to make you think twice about what you
know about yourself as a human being. Maybe we are all just a little less in control of ourselves than we
really think… Check out the list below and don’t forget to vote for your favorite psychology study!
#1 A Class Divided Experiment

In 1968, following the murder of civil rights leader Martin Luther King, teacher Jane Elliott
tried discussing issues of discrimination, racism, and prejudice with her third grade class in
Riceville, Iowa.
Not feeling that the discussion was getting through to her class, who did not normally
interact with minorities in their rural town, Ms. Elliott began a two-day "blue eyes/brown
eyes" exercise to reinforce the unfairness of discrimination and racism: Students with blue
eyes were given preferential treatment, given positive reinforcement, and made to feel
superior over those with brown eyes for one day; the procedure was reversed the next day,
with Ms. Elliott giving favourable preference to brown-eyed students.
As a result, whichever group was favoured by Elliott performed enthusiastically in class,

answered questions quickly and accurately, and performed better in tests; those who were
discriminated against felt more downcast, were hesitant and uncertain in their answers, and
performed poorly in tests. (Source: Wikipedia)
Jane Elliott Report
Final score: 265
Add a comment... POST

Caroline Espenschied 2 years ago
There is a documentary that was made about this experiment, I think it is called "blue-eyed" I have
seen it one night while darting through my channels and found it absolutely fascinating.
10 Reply
View more comments
#2 The Piano Stairs Experiment
Volkswagen's initiative called 'The Fun Theory' wanted to prove that people's behaviour can
be changed for the better by making boring, everyday tasks more fun. In this experiment in
Stockholm, Sweden they installed musical piano steps on the staircase of a subway station
to see if more people would choose the healthier option and use the stairs instead of the
escalator.
The results showed that 66% more people took the stairs than usual that day, because we all
like a little fun don't we? At heart we are like kids in a playground, so making our cities more
fun can make us all happier, fitter and healthier.
(Source: Thefuntheory.com)
thefuntheory Report
Final score: 235

Ellis 2 years ago

Yet if there would be piano stairs everywhere, every day, no one would use it anymore
58 Reply
View More Replies...
View more comments
#3 The "Violinist In The Metro" Experiment

On 12th January 2007, about a thousand morning commuters passing through a subway
station in Washington, D.C. were, without publicity, treated to a free mini-concert performed
by violin virtuoso Joshua Bell, who played for approximately 45 minutes, performing six
classical pieces (two of which were by Bach), on his handcrafted 1713 Stradivarius violin (for
which Bell reportedly paid $3.5 million).
Only 6 people stopped and stayed to listen for a while. About 20 gave him money but
continued to walk their normal pace. He collected $32. When he finished playing and silence
took over, no one noticed it. No one applauded, nor was there any recognition. No one
noticed that one of the best musicians in the world had played one of the most intricate
pieces ever written with a violin worth 3.5 million dollars.
Washington Post writer Gene Weingarten set up the event “as an experiment in context,
perception and priorities — as well as an unblinking assessment of public taste: In a banal
setting at an inconvenient time, would beauty transcend?”
When children would occasionally stop to listen, their parents would grab them and quickly
usher them on their way. The experiment raised some interesting questions about how we
not only value beauty, but extent that which the setting and presentation make a difference.
Three days earlier, Bell had played to a full house at Boston’s Symphony Hall, where seats
went for over $100.(Source: Snopes)
Joshua Bell Report
Final score: 215
Tiari 2 years ago

I wonder how you can expect from those 1000 morning commuters to miss their trains and come
too late to work and probably risk some serious words from their boss, just to listen to some music
on the subway. This would have been more meaningful if done on a weekend afternoon.
18 Reply
View more comments
#4 Smoke Filled Room Experiment

This experiment had people alone in a room filling out a questionnaire, when smoke starts
coming from under the door. What do you do? You would get up and leave, tell someone in
charge and do so without hesitation, right? Now imagine the same situation, except that you
are not alone, you are with several other people who don't seem to care about the smoke.
What do you do now?
When alone, 75% of people reported the smoke almost immediately. The average time to
report was 2 minutes of first noticing the smoke.
However when two actors were present, who were working with the experimenters and told
to act as if nothing was wrong, only 10% of the subjects left the room or reported the smoke.
9 out of 10 subjects actually kept working on the questionnaire, while rubbing their eyes and
waving smoke out of their faces.
The experiment was a great example of people responding slower (or not at all) to
emergency situations in the presence of passive others. We seem to rely heavily on the
responses of others even against our own instincts. If the group acts as if everything is OK
then it must be, right? Wrong. Don't let the passivity of others result in your inaction. Don't
always assume that someone else will help, that someone is specified to take action on
behalf of others. Be the one to take action! (Source: Socially Psyched)
Bibb Latane and John M. Darley Report
Final score: 195
Hans 2 years ago

Even worse when people see someone in immediate need of help, such as someone insured and an
elderly who tripped. They will typically look if someone else is there, and if so, simply pass along.
39 Reply
View more comments
#5 Carlsberg Social Experiment

In this social experiment by the Danish brewery Carlsberg, the subjects, unsuspecting
couples out to watch a movie, walk into a crowded cinema. There are only 2 seats remaining,
right in the middle, with each of the rest taken by a rather tough-looking and tattooed male
biker.
As the informal experiment (which was actually intended to be just an advertisement)

unfolds, not all of the couples end up taking a seat, and upon seeing the bikers decide to
leave immediately. Some couples do choose to take their seats however, and are rewarded
with cheers from the crowd and a round of free Carlsberg beers. The experiment was a good
example of why people shouldn't always judge a book by its cover.
(Source: Youtube)
Carlsberg Report
Final score: 148
Caroline Huot 2 years ago

Yknow... if *I* walked into a cinema and only 2 seats were empty, I would be outta there... regardless
of how the rest of the audience looks! Just makes me feel claustrophobic to be completely
surrounded by people like that!
55 Reply
View more comments
#6 Robbers Cave Experiment

Robbers Cave Experiment
This experiment tested the Realistic Conflict Theory, and is an example of how negative
attitudes and behaviours arise between groups due to competition over limited resources.
The experimenters took two groups of 11- and 12-year-old boys to what they thought was a
summer camp. For the first week, the two groups of boys were separated and did not know
about each other. During this time, the boys bonded with the other boys in their group.
Then, the two groups were introduced to each other and immediately signs of conflict
began. The experimenters created competition between the groups and, as predicted, the
levels of hostility and aggressive behaviour between the groups increased.
In the third week, the experimenters created conditions that required both groups to work
together solving a common problem. One example was the drinking water problem. The kids
were under the impression that their drinking water was cut off possibly due to vandals.
Both groups worked together to solve the problem.
By the end of the experiment, after the groups had worked together on tasks, the making of
friends between groups had increased significantly, demonstrating that working inter-group
socialisation is one of the most effective ways to reduce prejudice and discrimination.
(Source: Socially Psyched)
Sherif Report
Final score: 147
CatShatBrix 2 years ago

So nice to see that they set aside their differences and worked together!
26 Reply
View more comments
#7 The Marshmallow Test Experiment

The Marshmallow Test Experiment
The Stanford marshmallow experiment was a series of studies on delayed gratification in
the late 1960's and early 1970's led by psychologist Walter Mischel.
Using children of ages four to six as subjects, they were led into a room where a treat
(usually a marshmallow, but sometimes a cookie or pretzel stick), was placed on a table, by
a chair. The children could eat the treat, the researchers said, but if they waited for fifteen
minutes without giving in to the temptation, they would be rewarded with a second treat.
Mischel observed that some would "cover their eyes with their hands or turn around so that
they can't see the tray, others start kicking the desk, or tug on their pigtails, or stroke the
marshmallow as if it were a tiny stuffed animal," while others would simply eat the
marshmallow as soon as the researchers left.
In over 600 children who took part in the experiment, a minority ate the marshmallow
immediately. Of those who attempted to delay, one third deferred gratification long enough
to get the second marshmallow. Age was a major determinant of deferred gratification.
In follow-up studies, the researchers found that children who were able to wait longer for the
larger reward of two marshmallows tended to have better life outcomes, as measured
by SAT scores, educational attainment, body mass index, and other life measures. (Source:
Wikipedia)
IgniterMedia Report
Final score: 114
Pi... 2 years ago

Wow! This experiment is commendable because they did follow up studies on these kids as they
grew! Quite thorough!
55 Reply
View more comments
#8 The Milgram Experiment

The Milgram Experiment
This experiment was conducted in 1961 by psychologist Stanley Milgram, and was designed
to measure the lengths that people would go to in obedience to authority figures, even if the
acts they were instructed to carry out were clearly harmful to others.
Subjects were told to play the role of teacher and administer electric shocks to the learner,
an actor who was out of sight and ostensibly in another room, every time they answered a
question incorrectly. In reality, no one was actually being shocked. The learner, purposely
answering questions wrongly, was made to sound like they were in a great deal of pain as
the intensity of the shocks increased with each incorrect answer. Despite these protests
many subjects continued to administer shocks when an authority figure, the 'experimenter,'
urged them to. Eventually, 65% of subjects administered what would be lethal electric
shocks, the highest level of 450 volts.
The results showed that ordinary people are likely to follow orders given by an authority
figure, even to the extent of killing an innocent human being. Obedience to authority is
simply ingrained in us all, from the way we are brought up as children.
(Source: Simply Psychology)
Stanley Milgram Report
Final score: 106
Hans 2 years ago

Also totally unethical, this experiment still has to be considered a shock. It also gives some hints
why for example in the Nazi dictatorship so many ordinary people became delinquents, doing
unimaginable gruesome things.
41 Reply
View more comments
#9 Car Crash Experiment

The 1974 Car Crash Experiment by Loftus and Palmer aimed to prove that wording
questions a certain way could influence a participant’s recall, by twisting their memories of a
specific event.
They asked people to estimate the speed of motor vehicles using different forms of
questions. Estimating vehicle speed is something people are generally poor at and so they
may be more open to suggestion.
The participants watched slides of a car accident and were asked to describe what had
happened as if they were eyewitnesses to the scene. The participants were put into two
groups and each group was asked a question about speed using different verbs to describe
the impact, for example, “how fast was the car going when it
smashed/collided/bumped/hit/contacted the other car?”
The results show that the verb conveyed an impression of the speed the car was travelling
and this altered the participants' perceptions. Participants who were asked the “smashed”
question thought the cars were going faster than those who were asked the “hit” question.
The participants in the “smashed” condition reported the highest speed estimate (40.8 mph),
followed by “collided” (39.3 mph), “bumped” (38.1 mph), “hit” (34 mph), and “contacted”
(31.8 mph) in descending order. In other words, eyewitness testimony might be biased by
the way questions are asked after a crime is committed.
(Source: SimplyPsychology)
Loftus and Palmer , Natalie Cooper Report
Final score: 99

EvieNiffler 2 years ago
This is why eyewitness testimonies, despite having a large effect on court proceedings, are actually
a very unreliable source of evidence. The suggestibility of the human mind is incredible :O
43 Reply
View more comments
#10 False Consensus Experiment

In this experiment, researchers asked college students whether they would be willing to walk
around campus for 30 minutes wearing a large sandwich board bearing the message: "Eat at
Joe's."
The researchers then asked the students to estimate how many other people would agree to
wear the advertisement. They found that those who agreed to carry the sign believed that
the majority of people would also agree to carry the sign. Those who refused felt that the
majority of people would refuse as well. So whether they agreed to promote "Joe's" or not,
participants were strong in their belief that most others would have made the same choice.
The results demonstrate what is known in psychology as the false consensus effect. No
matter what our beliefs, options, or behaviours, we tend to believe that the majority of other
people agree with us and act the same way we do.
(Source: Persuasive Litigator)
Lee Ross Report
Final score: 88
Hans 2 years ago

Now tell this to all these people who claim that their radical political views, in particular their racism
is shared by a "silent majority". There is no such!
49 Reply
View more comments
#11 The Invisible Gorilla Experiment

Imagine you are asked to watch a short video in which six people-three in white shirts and
three in black shirts-pass basketballs around. While you watch, you must keep a silent count
of the number of passes made by the people in white shirts. At some point, a gorilla strolls
into the middle of the action, faces the camera and thumps its chest, and then leaves,
spending nine seconds on screen. Would you see the gorilla?
Almost everyone has the intuition that the answer is "yes, of course I would." How could
something so obvious go completely unnoticed? But during this experiment at Harvard
University several years ago, it was found that half of the people who watched the video and
counted the passes missed the gorilla. It was as though the gorilla was invisible.
This experiment reveals two things: that we are missing a lot of what goes on around us, and
that we have no idea that we are missing so much.
(Source: The Invisible Gorilla - You can watch the video here)
Daniel Simons and Christopher Chabris , Daniel J. Simons Report
Final score: 71
Daria B 2 years ago

I'd say this experiment shows we are missing things around us when we are focused on something
particular...
43 Reply
View more comments
#12 The "Monster" Study

This experiment was conducted by Dr. Wendell Johnson, a speech pathologist who wanted
to show that the prevailing theories about the causes of stuttering were wrong. During the
1930s it was thought that stuttering had an organic or genetic cause. This meant you were
born a stutterer (or not) and little could be done.
Dr. Johnson believed that the labelling of children as stutterers could actually make them
worse, and in some cases cause ‘normal’ children to start stuttering. To prove his point, he
suggested an experiment which has since become known as the ‘Monster Study’.
Twenty-two young orphans were recruited to participate in the experiment. They were then
divided into two groups. The first were labelled ‘normal speakers’ and the second ‘stutterers’.
Crucially only half of the group labelled stutterers did actually show signs of stuttering.
During the course of the experiment, the normal speakers were given positive
encouragement but it was the treatment of the other group that has made the experiment
notorious. The group labelled stutterers were made more self-conscious about stuttering.
They were lectured about stuttering and told to take extra care not to repeat words. Other
teachers and staff at the orphanage were even unknowingly recruited to reinforce the label
as the researchers told them the whole group were stutterers.
Of the six ‘normal’ children in the stuttering group, five began stuttering after the negative
therapy. Of the five children who had stuttered before their ‘therapy’, three became worse. In
comparison, only one of the children in the group labelled ‘normal’ had greater speech
problems after the study.
Realising the power of their experiment, the researchers tried to undo the damage they had
done, but to no avail. It seemed the effects of labelling the children stutterers was
permanent. This is something the orphans labelled stutterers have had to cope with for the
rest of their lives.
Clearly this research raises a number of major ethical concerns, despite the good intentions
of the researcher. In 2001 the University of Iowa, where the study was conducted, issued a
formal apology and called the experiment both regrettable and indefensible. (Source:
PsyBlog)
Wendell Johnson , Counselling Report
Final score: 64
Kiahna 2 years ago

They permanently disabled some poor children. If only they had known the effects, then this could've
been avoided. So sad, the lengths people will go to do an experiment.
32 Reply

View more comments
#13 Hawthorne E ect Experiment

The Hawthorne Effect came from a 1955 study conducted by Henry Landsberger.
The original purpose of the experiments was to study the effects of physical conditions on
productivity. Two groups of workers in the Hawthorne factory were used as guinea pigs. One
day the lighting in the work area for one group was improved dramatically while the other
group's lighting remained unchanged. The researchers were surprised to find that the
productivity of the more highly illuminated workers increased much more than that of the
control group.
The employees' working conditions were changed in other ways too (their working hours,
rest breaks and so on), and in all cases their productivity improved when a change was
made. Indeed, their productivity even improved when the lights were dimmed again. By the
time everything had been returned to the way it was before the changes had begun,
productivity at the factory was at its highest level. Absenteeism had plummeted.
The experimenters concluded that it was not the changes in physical conditions that were
affecting the workers' productivity. Rather, it was the fact that someone was actually
concerned about their workplace and was observing them. The workers felt important
because they were pleased to be singled out, and increased productivity as a result. This
effect is a simple premise that human subjects in an experiment change their behavior
simply because they are being studied.
(Source: The Economist)
Henry A. Landsberger Report
Final score: 63
Hans 2 years ago

Still today so many bosses do not believe in this, seeing humans as "human ressources" and not as,
well, humans, who do best when motivated and convinced of what they do. Alas.
29 Reply
View more comments
#14 Halo E ect Experiment

In this experiment conducted in 1920, educational psychologist Edward Thorndike asked two
commanding officers to evaluate their soldiers in terms of physical qualities (neatness,
voice, physique, bearing, and energy), intellect, leadership skills, and personal qualities
(including dependability, loyalty, responsibility, selflessness, and cooperation). His goal was
to see how a persons judgement of one characteristic affected their subsequent judgement
of other characteristics.
Thorndike discovered that when commanding officers gained a good impression of one
characteristic from a soldier, those good feelings tended to affect perceptions of other
qualities. Conversely, if a soldier had a particular "negative" attribute picked up by the
commanding officer, it would correlate in the rest of that soldier's results.
The 'halo effect' refers to the positive impressions that people get about one particular
characteristic affecting perceptions of other qualities. For example if you find somebody to
be physically attractive, it can lead to skewed favourable perceptions of their other qualities
such as generosity, friendliness, intelligence etc. However the reverse is also true. If you get
negative impression of one characteristic it can lead you to view other personal qualities in a
less favourable light. First impressions count! (Source: Wikipedia)
wiki , 699pic Report
Final score: 55
eyo too 2 years ago

Sometimes I'm amazed how simplistic humans are when we think we are complex. So many of your
issues are caused by our need to simplify our world by grouping things -- whether stereotypes, or in
this case, by personality traits. In many ways, these cognitive strategies help us get through life, but
sometimes it can create some serious injustice for individuals.
4 Reply
View more comments
#15 Kitty Genovese Case

Kitty Genovese Case
The murder case of Kitty Genovese was never intended to be a psychological experiment,
however it ended up becoming the catalyst for discoveries about what is now known as the
Bystander Effect.
The bystander effect occurs when the presence of others discourages an individual from
intervening in an emergency situation. Social psychologists Bibb Latané and John Darley
popularized the concept following the infamous 1964 murder in New York City. Genovese
was stabbed to death outside her apartment while bystanders who observed the crime did
not step in to assist or call the police. Latané and Darley attributed the bystander effect to
the perceived diffusion of responsibility (onlookers are more likely to intervene if there are
few or no other witnesses) and social influence (individuals in a group monitor the behavior
of those around them to determine how to act). In Genovese's case, each onlooker
concluded from their neighbors' inaction that their own personal help was not needed.
(Source: Psychology Today)
wiki Report
Final score: 53
KK 2 years ago
This is a famous case. The bystander effect exists, but the Kitty Genovese case is a bit more
complex. Neighbours were watching from the appartment on the other side, but it was early in the
morning and it might've been just two lovers fighting. 2 people in the appartment called the police,
and one neighbour woman held Kitty in her arms as she was dying. At that time, not everyone had a
phone in their house and this was also before the 911 was installed.
65 Reply
View more comments
#16 Bobo Doll Experiment

Bobo Doll Experiment
The Bobo Doll Experiment was performed in 1961 by Albert Bandura, to test his belief that all
human behaviour was learned, through social imitation and copying, rather than inherited
through genetic factors.
To try and prove that children would copy an adult role model's behaviour, he separated
participants into groups. One was exposed to an adult showing aggressive behaviour
towards a Bobo doll; another was exposed to a passive adult playing with the Bobo doll; and
the third formed a control group with no exposure to an adult at all.
Children were sent to a room individually with various toys including the Bobo doll. They
were told not to play with the toys as they were reserved for other children. This was
designed to increase the levels of frustration. What the researcher found was that children
exposed to the aggressive model were more likely to exhibit aggressive behaviour towards
the Bobo doll themselves, while the other groups showed little aggressive behaviour. For
those children exposed to the aggressive model, it was boys that showed a far higher
tendency to mimic the physically aggressive behaviour of the adult.
(Source: Explorable)
Albert Bandura Report
Final score: 48
Pi... 2 years ago

Indoctrination always starts young.
16 Reply
View more comments

#17 The Asch Conformity Experiment
The Asch Conformity Experiment
The Asch Experiment is another famous example of social conformity in group situations.
One subject was placed in a room with other people, actors who had been previously
instructed how to respond. The person conducting the experiment held up an image with
three numbered lines and asked each person in the room to identify the longest line.
The actors responded first, purposely choosing the incorrect line, making a blatant and
obvious error. The results showed that, on average, 32% of subjects who were placed in this
situation went along and conformed to the clearly incorrect majority, again showing how
readily people tend to conform in group situations despite the evidence in front of their very
eyes.
When they were interviewed after the experiment, most of the subjects said that they did not
really believe their conforming answers, but had gone along with the group for fear of being
ridiculed or thought "peculiar". A few of them said that they really did believe the group's
answers were correct.
Apparently, people conform for two main reasons: because they want to fit in with the group,
and because they believe the group is better informed than they are.
(Source: Simply Psychology)
Solomon Asch Report
Final score: 46
Google User 2 years ago

"to identify the LONGEST line"??? I'm pretty sure the experiment was to identify which line of the 3
lines on the right was the same length as the line on the left. See the image posted.
22 Reply
View more comments
#18 The Good Samaritan Experiment

The Good Samaritan Experiment
In 1973 at Princeton Theological Seminary, students took part in an experiment which was
ostensibly a study on religious education and vocations. In one building, they completed a
questionnaire, then they were instructed to go to another building to give either a talk on
jobs, or a talk on the story of the Good Samaritan. The participants were told to hurry, but to
different degrees. On the way to the second building, a confederate (actor who is part of the
study) was hunched over in the alley, in plain sight, in clear need of help. This experiment
was a test of people's willingness to help and how it is affected by situational factors.
First the researchers found that it mattered less whether the participants were going to talk
about jobs or about the story of the Good Samaritan, although those going to talk on the
subject of help did show a slightly greater willingness to stop and help. The "hurry variable"
was however significantly correlated to the helping behaviour, that is, the more the
participants were in a hurry, the less helping behaviour they demonstrated. In fact, only 10%
of those who were in the "high hurry" category offered aid to the suffering actor. Those in
less of a hurry offered more help, as many as 63% of the subjects in the low hurry condition
stopped to offer assistance.
Hurrying then significantly effected helpfulness, much more than personality factors. It
appears that acts of kindness are more strongly influenced by situational factors than many
of us think.
(Source: Socially Psyched)
John Darley and Daniel Batson , NorniTUBE Report
Final score: 44
Janice Foster 2 years ago

Really relevant in today's fast paced environment
12 Reply
View more comments
#19 Fantz’s Looking Chamber

Fantz’s Looking Chamber
In 1961, when Fantz carried out his simple yet genius experiment, there wasn’t much you
could do to find out what was going on in a baby’s head – other than watch. And watching
the baby is what he did.
An enduring feature of human nature is if there’s something of interest near us, we generally
look at it. So Fantz set up a display board above the baby to which were attached two
pictures. On one was a bulls-eye and on the other was the sketch of a human face. Then,
from behind the board, invisible to the baby, he peeked through a hole to watch what the
baby looked at.
What he found was that a two-month old baby looked twice as much at the human face as it
did at the bulls-eye. This suggested that human babies have some powers of pattern and
form selection. Before this it was thought that babies looked out onto a chaotic world of
which they could make little sense.
As a result of this and subsequent similar studies, psychologists have suggested that we are
born with a definite preference for viewing human faces. This would certainly make
evolutionary sense as other human faces hold all sorts of useful information which is vital
for our survival. (Source: Psyblog)
Robert L. Fantz Report
Final score: 37
Hans 2 years ago

Most people underestimate the skills of infants. They may hear and distinguish sounds the moment
they are born. They will remember from the moment they were born, although possibly not in the way
we as adults will remember. They will feel physical pain. They will have a basic understanding of
language at six months of ago, long before producing a single word. They within the first month of
life develop the ability to think abstractly. What they, however, not develop so soon is empathy, and
even strategic thinking (in terms of running danger of being "spoiled") takes a while to develop.
Adults considering infants stupid little thing are, well, stupid, and those who say that they do not feel
pain, do not "remember" distress, or let them cry because otherwise they "would learn to always get
their will" are simple cruel.
19 Reply
View more comments
#20 The Third Wave Experiment

The Third Wave was an experimental social movement created by California high school
history teacher Ron Jones to explain how the German population could accept the actions of
the Nazi regime during the Second World War.
While he taught his students about Nazi Germany during his "Contemporary World History"
class, Jones found it difficult to explain how the German people could accept the actions of
the Nazis, and decided to create a social movement as a demonstration of the appeal of
fascism. Over the course of five days, Jones conducted a series of exercises in his
classroom emphasizing discipline and community, intended to model certain characteristics
of the Nazi movement.
As the movement grew outside his class and began to number in the hundreds, Jones began
to feel that the movement had spiraled out of control. He convinced the students to attend a
rally where he claimed the announcement of a Third Wave presidential candidate would be
televised. Upon their arrival, the students were presented with a blank channel. Jones told
his students of the true nature of the movement as an experiment in fascism, and presented
to them a short film discussing the actions of Nazi Germany.
(Source: Wikipedia)
Ron Jones , Rat Pack Filmproduktion Report

Final score: 36
Hans 2 years ago

This has also been filmed. Quite shocking, how simple humans can be influenced.
19 Reply
View more comments
#21 The Facebook Experiment

In 2012 Facebook conducted a massive experiment on its users, unbeknownst to them. The
social media giant manipulated the news feeds of 689,003 people for one week, prioritizing
either positive or negative emotional content. They then tracked the updates that the
unwitting users posted, to see if they had been influenced by the manipulated feeds.
What they found was that they could essentially make their users feel happier or sadder, in a
process called ‘emotional contagion’. The study concluded by saying: "Emotions expressed
by friends, via online social networks, influence our own moods, constituting, to our
knowledge, the first experimental evidence for massive-scale emotional contagion via social
networks."
While completely legal, we all sign up for Facebook voluntarily after all, the ethics of such
mass manipulation are questionable. "People are supposed to be told they are going to be
participants in research and then agree to it and have the option not to agree to it without
penalty." One academic said in response to the controversial experiment.
The power that social media networks are beginning to exert over our lives is of increasing
concern. Do you trust Facebook to look after your best interests? Or are you leaving yourself
open to emotional manipulation for the benefit of advertisers? The study, while controversial,
has opened a deeper discussion about online ethics and privacy, which can only be a good
thing. (Source: Forbes)
forbes Report
Final score: 30
Hans 2 years ago

Moreover, people tend to do the same yourself. You believe in chemtrails? Chances are that you skip
all articles that make them unplausible but you will suck in any faint hint that the conspiracy theory
could have some truth behind it...
13 Reply
View more comments
#22 Cognitive Dissonance Experiment

The Cognitive Dissonance Experiment is based on the theory that people hold many different
cognitions about their world, for example about their environment and their personalities. In
an event wherein some of these cognitions clash, an unsettled state of tension occurs and
this is called cognitive dissonance.
In 1959 Leon Festinger conducted an experiment where participants were asked to perform
a series of painstakingly boring tasks, such as pointlessly turning pegs in a peg board for an
hour. Participants responses toward the task were highly negative. They were then paid
either $1 or $20 to tell a participant waiting in the lobby that the tasks were really interesting.
When the participants were later asked to evaluate the experiment, the participants who
were paid only $1 to lie to the waiting participants rated the tedious task as more fun and
enjoyable than the participants who were paid $20 to lie.
It seems that being paid only $1 is not a sufficient incentive for lying, and so those who were
paid $1 experienced dissonance. They could only overcome that dissonance by coming to
believe that the tasks really were interesting and enjoyable. Being paid $20 provides a reason
for turning pegs and there is therefore no dissonance. Therefore people, when persuaded to
lie without being given enough justification, will convince themselves of the falsehood, rather
than telling a lie. (Source: Explorable)
Festinger, L., & Carlsmith, J. M. , Dave Pape Report
Final score: 24

eyo too 2 years ago
And now you know why people have trouble admitting that their votes may not have been well spent.
They convince themselves that it is still was a good choice rather than acknowledging results of
said person in office are in dissonance with their beliefs of what would occur prior to the election.
13 Reply
View more comments
#23 Surrogate Mother Experiment

Harry Harlow, during the late 1950s and early 1960s, wanted to study the importance of a
mother’s love for healthy childhood development. In order to do so he conducted a series of
experiments on rhesus monkeys, observing how isolation and separation can affect the
subjects in the latter years of their lives. Harlow’s Monkey experiment ultimately reinforced
the importance of mother-and-child bonding.
Harlow separated infant monkeys from their biological mothers within 6 to 12 hours after
being born. He then placed these infants in a nursery with inanimate ‘surrogate’ mothers –
one who is made of heavy wire mesh and the other made of wood that was covered in soft
cloth. Both surrogates were of the same size; however the wire mesh mother did not have
any soft surface, while the cloth mother was soft to the touch and appeared to be cuddly.
In the first experiment, both the surrogates were placed with the infant monkeys, so the
infants would have a ‘choice’ where to go. Both surrogates are able to provide nourishment
to the infants. In the second experiment, the infant monkeys were divided into two groups
(wire mesh or terry cloth), and the infants had no choice which one they would go to.
After observing the infant monkeys over time, it was found that even though the infants
received nourishment from the wire mesh mother, they still spent more time cuddling and
being affectionate with the terry cloth mother. This shows that the bond between mother
and infant was not solely based on whether the former is able to give the latter’s
physiological needs.
Furthermore, the results of the second experiment showed that while the infants from both
groups consumed the same amount of milk from their mother, the infants who grew up with
the terry cloth mother exhibited emotional attachment and what is considered as normal
behaviour when presented with stressful variables. Whenever they felt threatened, they
would come close to the terry cloth mother and cuddle with it until the monkeys were calm.
The results for the wire mesh mother were the opposite. They reacted rather differently with
the same stimulus – throwing themselves on the floor, rocking back and forth, and evidently
did not go to the wire mesh mother for comfort.
(Source: The Psychology Notes HQ)
Harry Harlow Report
Final score: 24
Hans 2 years ago

Another totally unethical experiment.
6 Reply
View more comments

#24 “Lost In The Mall” Experiment
The "Lost in the Mall" experiment is a memory implantation technique used to demonstrate
that confabulations about events that never took place – such as having been lost in a
shopping mall as a child – can be created through suggestions made to experimental
subjects. It was first developed by Jim Coan, an undergraduate student of psychologist
Elizabeth Loftus as support for the claim that it is possible to implant entirely false
memories in people. The technique was developed in the context of the debate about the
existence of repressed memories and false memories.
Coan enlisted his mother, sister and brother as subjects. He assembled booklets containing
four short narratives describing childhood events, and instructed them to try to remember as
much as possible about each of the four events, and to write down those details over the
course of six days. Unbeknown to the participants, one of the narratives was false; it
described Coan's brother getting lost in a shopping mall at around the age of 5, then being
rescued by an elderly person and reunited with his family. During the experiment, Coan's
brother unwittingly invented several additional details of the false narrative. At the
conclusion of the experiment—during a tape-recorded debriefing—when told that one of the
narratives was false, Coan's brother could not identify which one and expressed disbelief
when told.
Loftus calls this study "existence proof" for the phenomenon of false memory creation and
suggests that the false memory is formed as a result of the suggested event (being lost in a
mall) being incorporated into already existing memories of going to the mall. With the
passage of time it becomes harder for people to differentiate between what actually
happened and what was imagined and they make memory errors.
(Source: Wikipedia)
Elizabeth Loftus, James Coan and Jacqueline Pickrell , Chris Sampson Report
Final score: 24
eyo too 2 years ago

This study isn't true. You were told this experiment was true over several years and now you believe
it to be true from those years of influence and suggestion.
14 Reply
View more comments
#25 Stanford Prison Experiment

The Stanford prison experiment was an attempt to investigate the psychological effects of
perceived power, focusing on the struggle between prisoners and prison officers. It was
conducted at Stanford University in 1971, by a research group led by psychology professor
Philip Zimbardo and using college students as subjects.
Zimbardo aimed to test the hypothesis that the inherent personality traits of prisoners and
guards are the chief cause of abusive behaviour in prison. Participants were randomly
assigned to either the role of prisoner or guard, simulating a prison environment. Prisoners
were treated like every other criminal. When they arrived at the prison they were stripped
naked, deloused, had all their personal possessions removed and locked away, and were
given prison clothes and bedding. They were issued a uniform, and referred to by their
number only. The use of ID numbers was a way to make prisoners feel anonymous.
Within hours of beginning the experiment those who were assigned as guards began to
harass the prisoners. The prisoners were taunted with insults, given pointless and boring
tasks to accomplish, and they were generally dehumanised. In less than a week some of the
guards had become sadistic, escalating their abuse of prisoners as the days passed. The
prisoners had broken down emotionally and physically.
The results of the study concluded that people conform to the social roles they are expected
to play, especially if the roles are as strongly stereotyped as those of the prison guards. It
seemed that it was the situation, and not their individual personalities, that had caused the
guards brutal and sadistic behaviour. None of the participants who had become guards had
shown signs of sadistic personality types before the beginning of the study.
(Source: Wikipedia)
Zimbardo Report
Final score: 23
SJ_Panda_love 2 years ago

They made a movie on this experiment and it was terrible to watch. In the end of movie they showed
interviews of actual actors who took part in this experiment and even decades after the experiment
some guards were living a very guilty driven life for their action, same some prisoner actors were still
have anxiety attacks. This experiment was widely condemned and university suffered a huge
backlash from various parts of society.
13 Reply
View more comments
#26 Learned Helplessness Experiment

The concept of “learned helplessness” was investigated by Martin Seligman in 1965. The
discovery of this concept was accidental and it occurred during a series of studies about
negative reinforcement.
The studies were conducted on dogs and was an attempt to expand on the research of
Pavlov – he who made dogs salivate when they heard a bell ring. Seligman wanted to head
in the other direction, when he rang his bell instead of providing food, he shocked them
lightly with electricity. To keep them still, he restrained them in a harness during the
experiment.
After they were conditioned, he put these dogs in a big box with a little fence dividing it into
two halves. It was hypothesized that if he rang the bell, the dog would hop over the fence to
escape, but it didn’t. It just sat there and braced itself. He decided to try shocking them after
ringing the bell, but the dog still just sat there and took it. When they put a dog in the box
which had never been shocked before and tried to shock it – it jumped the fence
immediately.
As the dogs had learned from the first part of the experiment that there was nothing they
could do to avoid the shocks, they gave up and lay there resigned to their fate in the second
part of the experiment. This condition is described as learned helplessness, where a human
or animal does not attempt to get out of a negative situation because the past has taught
them that they are helpless. (Source: You Are Not So Smart)
Martin Seligman , jobertjamis23 Report
Final score: 18
SJ_Panda_love 2 years ago

This is a common behavior of elephants in Circus, when a baby elephant is born in a circus they bind
his leg with a chain which this elephant cannot break in its childhood, but as the elephant grows to a
full male/female, easily capable of breaking the chain just by a small tug, it never tries to do it, coz
subconsciously the elephant believes it cannot break the chain ever as experienced in childhood.
32 Reply
View more comments
#27 Little Albert Experiment

This controversial experiment was conducted in 1920 by John Watson and Rosalie Rayner at
Johns Hopkins University. A one-year-old baby called Albert was put on a mattress on a table
in the middle of a room. A white laboratory rat was placed near Albert and he was allowed to
play with it. At this point the experimenters made a loud sound behind Albert's back by
striking a suspended steel bar with a hammer each time the baby touched the rat. Albert
responded to the noise by crying and showing fear. After several such pairings of the two
stimuli, Albert was presented with only the rat. Upon seeing the rat, Albert got very
distressed, crying and crawling away. Apparently, the infant associated the white rat with the
noise. The rat, originally a neutral stimulus, had become a conditioned stimulus, and it was
eliciting an emotional response (conditioned response) similar to the distress
(unconditioned response) originally given to the noise (unconditioned stimulus).
In further experiments, Little Albert seemed to generalize his response to the white rat. He
became distressed at the sight of several other furry objects, such as a rabbit, a furry dog,
and a seal-skin coat, and even a Santa Claus mask with white cotton balls in the beard.
The experiment had many failings by modern standards. For example, it had only a single
subject and no control subjects. Furthermore, such an experiment could be hard to conduct
in compliance with current law and regulations, it is now generally considered to be one of
the more unethical psychological experiments conducted throughout the years.
(Source: Wikipedia)
John B. Watson and Rosalie Rayner Report
Final score: 18
Hans 2 years ago

Wow...old day psychology. These experiments are so wrong from a morale point of view. And for a
empathic being they must have been that all the way back already!
19 Reply
View more comments
#28 Pavlov’s Dog Experiment

While Ivan Pavlov worked to unveil the secrets of the digestive system, he also studied what
signals triggered related phenomena, such as the secretion of saliva. When a dog
encounters food, saliva starts to pour from the salivary glands located in the back of its oral
cavity. This saliva is needed in order to make the food easier to swallow, and also contains
enzymes that break down certain compounds in the food.
Pavlov became interested in studying reflexes when he saw that the dogs drooled without
the proper stimulus. Although no food was in sight, their saliva still dribbled. It turned out
that the dogs were reacting to lab coats. Every time the dogs were served food, the person
who served the food was wearing a lab coat. Therefore, the dogs reacted as if food was on
its way whenever they saw a lab coat.
In a series of experiments, Pavlov then tried to figure out how these phenomena were linked.
For example, he struck a bell when the dogs were fed. If the bell was sounded in close
association with their meal, the dogs learnt to associate the sound of the bell with food.
After a while, at the mere sound of the bell, they responded by drooling. The dogs had
learned to associate the bell and the food and this learning created a new behaviour.
Pavlov's discovery was that environmental events that previously had no relation to a given
reflex (such as a bell sound) could, through experience, trigger a reflex (salivation). This kind
of learnt response is called conditioned reflex, and the process whereby dogs or humans
learn to connect a stimulus to a reflex is called conditioning. (Source: Nobelprize.org)
Ivan Pavlov Report
Final score: 15
Steve Bowman 2 years ago

They left out the gruesome operations he performed on the animals.
20 Reply
View more comments
Bored Panda works best if you switch to our Android app
Follow Bored Panda on Google News!
Share
James Caunt Follow
Author, Community member
James is a Bored Panda reporter who graduated with a BA in Peace

And Conflict Studies and an MA in African Affairs. Before Bored
Panda, he was an English teacher and also travelled a lot, doing odd
jobs from beer-slinging to brickie's labourer and freelance journalism
along the way.
James loves covering stories about social and environmental issues
and prefers to highlight the positive things that unite us, rather than
petty internet squabbles about fictional characters.
James is the grumpy, contradictory one who thinks that Bored Panda,
due to its large audience, has a social responsibility to inspire and
inform its readers with interesting issues and entertaining, well-
researched stories...
Read more »
Popular on Bored Panda
30 Pics Of Cats That Got New Hugh Jackman Coffee 13 Exciting Facts You
Funny Haircuts At The Vet Ad Goes Viral Because It's Probably Didn't Know About
For Surgery Hilariously Narrated By His Typography
'Frenemy' Ryan Reynolds
30 Pics Of Cats That Got 13 Exciting Facts You
New Hugh Jackman Co ee
Funny Haircuts At The Vet Probably Didn't Know About
Ad Goes Viral Because It's
For Surgery Typography
Hilariously Narrated By His
'Frenemy' Ryan Reynolds
What do you think ?
Add a comment...
Janice Foster 2 years ago

Very interesting! More of this, please, Bored Panda, and less "I took a photo ood my cousin playing
chess every year at Thanksgiving"!
27 Reply
Petra Christovová 2 years ago

28 Psychological Experiments That Revealed Incredible and Uncomfortable Truths About Ourselves - Bored Panda PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

28 Psychological Experiments That Revealed Incredible and Uncomfortable Truths About Ourselves - Bored Panda PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Login

SCIENCE 2 YEARS AGO

28 Psychological Experiments That Revealed

#1 A Class Divided Experiment

As a result, whichever group was favoured by Elliott performed enthusiastically in class,

Jane Elliott Report

Final score: 265

Add a comment... POST

View more comments

#2 The Piano Stairs Experiment

Final score: 235

Ellis 2 years ago

View More Replies...

View more comments

#3 The "Violinist In The Metro" Experiment

Joshua Bell Report

Final score: 215

Add a comment... POST

Tiari 2 years ago

View more comments

#4 Smoke Filled Room Experiment

Bibb Latane and John M. Darley Report

Final score: 195

Add a comment... POST

Hans 2 years ago

View more comments

#5 Carlsberg Social Experiment

As the informal experiment (which was actually intended to be just an advertisement)

Final score: 148

Add a comment... POST

Caroline Huot 2 years ago

View More Replies...

View more comments

#6 Robbers Cave Experiment

Final score: 147

Add a comment... POST

CatShatBrix 2 years ago

View More Replies...

View more comments

#7 The Marshmallow Test Experiment

Final score: 114

Add a comment... POST

Pi... 2 years ago

View more comments

#8 The Milgram Experiment

(Source: Simply Psychology)

Stanley Milgram Report

Final score: 106

Add a comment... POST

Hans 2 years ago

View More Replies...

View more comments

#9 Car Crash Experiment

Loftus and Palmer , Natalie Cooper Report

Add a comment... POST

View more comments

#10 False Consensus Experiment

(Source: Persuasive Litigator)

Lee Ross Report

Add a comment... POST

Hans 2 years ago

View More Replies...

View more comments