1. Efficacy

2. History

3. Ethics

4. Best-known social experiments
     Bystander Apathy (Effect)   HighScope  RAND Health Insurance Experiment  Oportunidades/Prospera/Progresa  Moving to Opportunity  Stanford prison experiment  Experiments by Muzafer Sherif   Bobo doll experiment    Stanford marshmallow experiment    Asch Conformity experiment    Hawthorne experiment  

5. Less formal social experiments
     Female Catcaller    Brightside picks 13  

6. References

Efficacy

Social experiments are often referred to as "the gold standard" for program evaluation and reform processes. In measuring the impact of a social program, the researcher has to assess what the outcomes of the relevant population would have been in the absence of the program.^[2] Almost every naturally occurring comparison group, however, will differ from the composition of a non-random treatment group, usually because of selection bias (outside of an experiment, people choose to receive the treatment or choose not to). Randomization helps to create a control group that is statistically identical in large sample with the group that is assigned to receive the treatment, and in principle there is no selection bias.^[3]

History

The starting differentiation of the general field of psychology into physiological and social psychology as suggested by Wilhelm Wundt in 1862 lay way for the first social experiments. In 1895, American psychologist Norman Triplett constructed one of the first social experiments with the intention to study the influence of a group on racing performance. During the 1920s, Gordon Allport used experimental methods to study conformity, non-verbal communication, and social facilitation, shaping social psychology as we know it.^[4]

The social experiments that we commonly refer to today were conducted decades later; a famous example is Stanley Milgram's obedience experiment in 1963. Social experiments began in the United States as a test of the negative income tax concept in the late 1960s and since then have been conducted on all the populated continents. Some "have pilot tested major innovations in social policy", some "have been used to assess incremental changes in existing programs", while some "have provided the basis for evaluating the overall efficacy of major existing programs. Most "have been used to evaluate policies targeted at disadvantaged population groups".^[3][5]

During the 1970s, criticism of the ethics and accusations of gender and racial bias led to a reassessment of both the field of social psychology and the conducted experiments. While experimental methods were still employed, other methods gained popularity.^[4]

The term social experiment appears to have been co-opted in modern times to represent more loosely designed activities, less scientifically planned, but many times with similar aims though sometimes executed as a prank. Of significance is the fact that American President Herbert Hoover, described Prohibition using this term^[6] indicating the evolution of its formal definition even as early as 1920.

Ethics

Social experimentation has raised many ethical concerns, due to its manipulation of large groups of the population, often without consent.^[7]

Best-known social experiments

Bystander Apathy (Effect)

For their experiment, Latané and Darley ^[8] tried to replicate the Genovese slaying by having participants aware of each other but unable to communicate directly. Each participant was in a cubical in contact with each other via a microphone, however only one voice was allowed to speak at a time. A taped recording played of a participant having an epileptic seizure. When the participant believed themselves to be alone they invariably attempted to find help. When the participant believed others were around the speed and frequency of response declined significantly. The authors concluded that situational factors play an influential role on bystander apathy. People are less likely to help in an emergency if other people are present. Two reasons were offered by Latané and Darley: first is diffusion of responsibility. The second is pluralistic ignorance or the mentality that if nobody else is helping, then I am not needed as well.

Current research on bystander apathy by psychologist Kyle Thomas et al., found that people's decisions to help are influenced by their level of knowledge. While diffusion of responsibility and pluralistic ignorance are factors, the researchers found that bystanders’ decisions also consider what they know about other bystanders and the situation before getting involved.^[9]

HighScope

The HighScope Perry Preschool Project was evaluated in a randomized controlled trial of 123 children (58 were randomly assigned to a treatment group that received the program and a control group of 65 children that did not). Prior to the program, the preschool and control groups were equivalent in measures of intellectual performance and demographic characteristics. After the program, the educational and life outcomes for the children receiving the program were much superior to outcomes for the children not receiving the program. Many of the program effects were significant or approaching significance.^[10][11]

[https://highscope.org/perrypreschoolstudy At age 40, the participants were interviewed once more, and school, social services, and arrest records were pulled. The participants had higher earning jobs, committed fewer crimes, and were more likely to hold a job than adults who did not attend preschool.]

RAND Health Insurance Experiment

The RAND Health Insurance Experiment was an experimental study of health care costs, utilization and outcomes in the United States, which assigned people randomly to different kinds of plans and followed their behavior, from 1974 to 1982. As a result, it provided stronger evidence than studies that examine people afterwards who were not randomly assigned. It concluded that cost sharing reduced "inappropriate or unnecessary" medical care (overutilization), but also reduced "appropriate or needed" medical care. It did not have enough statistical power to tell whether people who got less appropriate or needed care were more likely to die as a result.

Oportunidades/Prospera/Progresa

Opportunidades (now rebranded as "Prospera") is a government social assistance (welfare) program in Mexico founded in 2002, based on a previous program called Progresa, created in 1997.^[12] It is designed to target poverty by providing cash payments to families in exchange for regular school attendance, health clinic visits, and nutrition support.^[13] Oportunidades is credited with decreasing poverty and improving health and educational attainment in regions where it has been deployed.^[14]

Moving to Opportunity

Moving to Opportunity for Fair Housing was a randomized social experiment sponsored by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development in the 1990s among 4600 low-income families with children living in high-poverty public housing projects. The program was designed based on the assumption that households benefit from living in higher-opportunity neighborhoods. Early evaluations of the MTO program, however, showed minimal gains for participant families. One explanation for these findings is the short length of time which MTO families typically spent in lower-poverty neighborhoods; the positive effects of longer-term exposure to low-poverty neighborhoods appear more promising.^[15]

Stanford prison experiment

The Stanford prison experiment was a study of the psychological effects of becoming a prisoner or prison guard. The experiment was conducted at Stanford University on August 14–20, 1971, by a team of researchers led by psychology professor Philip Zimbardo using college students.^[16] It was funded by the U.S. Office of Naval Research^[17] and was of interest to both the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps as an investigation into the causes of conflict between military guards and prisoners. The experiment is a classic study on the psychology of imprisonment^[18] and is a topic covered in most introductory psychology textbooks.^[19]

Experiments by Muzafer Sherif

Sherif was a founder of modern social psychology, who developed several unique and powerful techniques for understanding social processes, particularly social norms and social conflict. Sherif's experimental study of autokinetic movement demonstrated how mental evaluation norms were created by human beings.^[20] Sherif is equally famous for the Robbers Cave Experiments. This series of experiments, begun in Connecticut and concluded in Oklahoma, took boys from intact middle-class families, who were carefully screened to be psychologically normal, delivered them to a summer camp setting (with researchers doubling as counselors) and created social groups that came into conflict with each other.

Bobo doll experiment

The Bobo doll experiment was a study carried out by Albert Bandura who was a professor at Stanford University. It focused on the study of aggression using three groups of preschoolers as the subjects. Bandura took inflatable plastic toys called Bobo dolls and weighted them down to always stand upright. The preschoolers were divided into three groups by gender, and then into six subgroups. One of the groups would observe an adult act aggressively towards the bobo doll, another group would observe an adult with non-aggressive behaviors, and the last group would not be exposed to any behavior models. The study found the preschoolers exposed to the aggressive behavior had imitated the aggressiveness towards the doll, regardless of gender. The other two groups showed significantly less hostility towards the doll. The study had showed aggressive and non-aggressive behaviors were learned by observing others and had a significant effect on the subjects even after the study was concluded.^[21]

Stanford marshmallow experiment

The Stanford marshmallow experiment was a study done by psychologist Walter Mischel on delayed gratification in the early 1970s. During the three studies,In these studies, a child was offered a choice between one small reward provided immediately or two small rewards if they waited for a short period, approximately 15 minutes, during which the tester left the room and then returned. (The reward was sometimes a marshmallow, but often a cookie or a pretzel.) In follow-up studies, the researchers found that children who were able to wait longer for the preferred rewards tended to have better life outcomes, as measured by SAT scores, educational attainment, body mass index (BMI), and other life measures.^[22]

Asch Conformity experiment

The Asch experiment took place in the Swarthmore College in 1951. Solomon Asch conducted an experiment to investigate the extent where social pressure from a majority group could affect a person to conform.^[23]

Asch took 50 people from the college to participate in a vision test. They were paired up with 7 other people who they believed to be random, but instead were part of control group who would choose the same answers. The real participant would give his or her answers last. Out of the 18 trials, the group gave the wrong answers 12 times. 75% of the participants conformed once or more, and 25% never conformed to the group's wrong answers. Participants were interviewed after the experiment, and although they knew the answers were wrong, they conformed to not be ridiculed by the group. A few individuals said they thought the groups answers were correct. Asch concluded that people conformed because they either wanted to fit in, or thought the group was right.

Hawthorne experiment

The Hawthorne experiment took place in 1924 in the city of Chicago. Elton Mayo is widely known as the person behind the project. However, his involvement started in 1928 after he was invited by George Pennock, the Assistant Works Manager for the Hawthorne plant of Western Electric. During the experiment, workers were separated into two groups to study the effects of different incentives on their productivity. Different variations were tested, such as changing the light levels in the rooms. Other, more obvious incentives, such as monetary incentives and rest pauses, were also tested and seemed to show positive results.^[24] Several conclusions were made, after the experiments finished:

• when employees had more freedom to choose their own conditions and output standards, their productivity increased;
• social interaction played an important role in creation of high level of group cohesion;
• people tend to put more effort when they feel their worth and cooperate with each other.^[24]

Less formal social experiments

Female Catcaller

Comedian Tegan Higginbotham doled out a series of pick-up lines on a handful of men wandering the streets of Melbourne in a bid to flip the lid on sexist remarks as part of an experiment for the SBS show 'Is Australia Sexist?

Brightside picks 13

The website Brightside.me^[25] made a selection of 13 such experiments worldwide to report on, ranging from free produce, to fairness in driver penalties and a piano staircase.

References

• International Association of Sound and Audiovisual Archives
• International Association of Space Activities Participants
• International Association of Sport Law
• International Association of Sports Law
• International Association of Sufism
• International Association of Translation and Intercultural Studies
• International Association of Transport and Communication Museums
• International Association of Ultra Runners
• International Association of University Presidents
• International Association of Worldloppet Skiers
• International Association on the Political Use of Psychiatry
• International associations
• International Ataturk-Alatoo University
• International Athletics Championships and Games
• International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board
• International Auschwitz Committee
• International Authority for the Ruhr
• International Automated Systems Inc.
• International Automobilausstellung
• International Automobil Ausstellung
• International Automobil-Ausstellung
• International Automobile Ausstellung
• International Automobile-Ausstellung
• International Automobile Company
• International Automobile Construction Company