Psychology Syllabus Papers

Stanford Prison experiment:
Method: 24 people selected, given either a prisoner or guard role. Prisoners were humiliated, demoralised, while guards were told not to be violent.
Findings: The guards overstepped their roles and acted violently.
Conclusion: The experiment was abandoned due to violence.

• Robert Cialdini (2006)

• Stanley Milgram (1963)

• Haney, Banks & Zimbardo (1973)

• Solomon Asch (1951)

Petrified Wood Experiment
Method: Looked at whether people were more likely to steal if the wording was injunctive or descriptive
Findings: the percentage of theft increased when using a strong focus descriptive norm.
Conclusion: people will more likely to respond to others disapproval than to others normal behaviour

• Robert Cialdini (2006)

• Stanley Milgram (1963)

• Haney, Banks & Zimbardo (1973)

• Solomon Asch (1951)

Obedience shock experiment
Method: Three people took different roles, an experimenter, learner, and teacher. The experimenter told the teacher to shock the learner. Although the shocks were fake, the teacher didn't know.
Findings: That the teacher reached critical shocking levels, just because the experimenter told them to keep going.
Conclusion: People will perform actions, contradictory to their beliefs if instructed to do so by an authority figure.

• Robert Cialdini (2006)

• Stanley Milgram (1963)

• Haney, Banks & Zimbardo (1973)

• Solomon Asch (1951)

Visual Perception Line experiment
Method: students were asked out of 3 options, which was the closest to card A. Actors in the group all chose B.
Findings: Due to all other members in the group choosing B, the students felt obliged to choose it as well.
Conclusion: People wanted to belong, and felt as though others were better informed

• Robert Cialdini (2006)

• Stanley Milgram (1963)

• Haney, Banks & Zimbardo (1973)

• Solomon Asch (1951)

Bystander experiment
Method: Students were placed in individual cubicles but were connected via intercom.
a student stated they were prone to seizures then had one. afterwards, the room started to fill with smoke.
Findings: the larger the group size, the longer it took for someone to call for help
conclusion: people fear judgement for helping

• Latane & Darley (1970)

• Buss and colleagues (1990)

• Rollie & Duck (2006)

• Henry Tajfel (1970)

phase 1: Intrapsychic phase
phase 2: dyadic phase
phase 3: social phase
phase 4: grave-dressing phase
phase 5: resurrection phase

• Latane & Darley (1970)

• Buss and colleagues (1990)

• Rollie & Duck (2006)

• Henry Tajfel (1970)

International mate selection
Method: people across countries and ages were surveyed their mating preferences.
Findings: Mutual attraction and love was the most important for both genders.
Conclusion we all value different things.

• Latane & Darley (1970)

• Buss and colleagues (1990)

• Rollie & Duck (2006)

• Henry Tajfel (1970)

Boys painting experiment:
Method: Boys were shown slides with dots, and asked to recall how many. They were told they would be put into groups based on their results - but was actually random. Then asked to distribute money.
Findings: The boys were more likely to give themselves, and their own groups more money.
Conclusion: People value their groups significantly and want to reward them

• Latane & Darley (1970)

• Buss and colleagues (1990)

• Rollie & Duck (2006)

• Henry Tajfel (1970)

Money Talks experiment:
Method: People rewarded $1 or $20 to do a boring experiment, and tell the next person what they thought.
Findings: People who were given $1, lied and said it was fun; while $20 people told the truth
Conclusion: The $20 people said it was worth the money regardless of the entertainment.

• Festinger (1959)

• Ross & Colleagues (1977)

• David McMillan & David Chavis (1986)

• Bargh, Chen & Burrows (1996)

TV show experiment:
Method: students are given 3 roles, contestant, host and audience. The host designed the questions, then the audience determined who was the most intelligent.
Findings: The audience determined the host was the most intelligent - even though they designed the question.
Conclusion: people regularly partake in fundamental attribution error.

• Festinger (1959)

• Ross & Colleagues (1977)

• David McMillan & David Chavis (1986)

• Bargh, Chen & Burrows (1996)