Pavlov’s Dog Experiment

Study Conducted by: Ivan Pavlov

Study Conducted in the 1890s at the Military Medical Academy in St. Petersburg, Russia
Experiment Details: Pavlov’s experiment with dogs turned out to be one of the most pivotal
experiments in all of psychology. His findings on conditioning led to a whole new branch of
psychological study.
Pavlov began with the simple idea that there are some things that a dog does not need to learn.
Specific to his study he observed that dogs do not learn to salivate when they see food. This
reflex is “hard wired” into the dog. In what became “behaviorist terms,” this is an unconditioned
response (a stimulus-response connection that required no learning). Pavlov outlined that there
are unconditioned responses in the animal by presenting a dog with a bowl of food and then
measuring its salivary secretions. In the experiment, Pavlov used a bell as his neutral stimulus
(meaning it does not elicit any innate response). Whenever he gave food to his dogs, he also rang
a bell. After a number of repeats of this procedure, he tried the bell on its own. What he found
was that the bell on its own now caused an increase in salivation. The dog had learned to
associate the bell and the food and this learning created a new behavior, the dog salivated when
he heard the bell. Because this response was learned (or conditioned), it is called a conditioned
response. The neutral stimulus has become a conditioned stimulus.
This theory came to be known as classical conditioning (further developed by experimenter and
psychologist John Watson) and involves learning to associate an unconditioned stimulus that
already brings about a particular response (i.e., a reflex) with a new (conditioned) stimulus, so
that the new stimulus brings about the same response.
The Marshmallow Test
Study Conducted by: Walter Mischel
Study Conducted in 1972 at Stanford University
Experiment Details: Walter Mischel of Stanford University set out to study whether deferred
gratification can be an indicator of future success.
In his 1972 Marshmallow Experiment children ages four to six were taken into a room where a
marshmallow was placed on the table in front of them on a table. Before leaving each of the
children alone in the room, the experimenter informed them that they would receive a second
marshmallow if the first one was still on the table after they returned in 15 minutes. The
examiner recorded how long each child resisted eating the marshmallow and noted whether it
correlated with the child’s success in adulthood. A small number of the 600 children ate the
marshmallow immediately and one-third delayed gratification long enough to receive the second
marshmallow.
In follow-up studies, Mischel found that those who deferred gratification were significantly more
competent and received higher SAT scores than their peers, meaning that this characteristic
likely remains with a person for life. While this study seems simplistic, the findings outline some
of the foundational differences in individual traits that can predict success.

The Good Samaritan Experiment

 Study Conducted by: John Darley and Daniel Batson
Study Conducted in 1973 at The Princeton Theological Seminary (Researchers were from
Princeton University)
Experiment Details: In 1973, an experiment was created by John Darley and Daniel Batson, to
investigate the potential causes that underlie altruistic behavior. The experiment researchers set
out three hypotheses they wanted to test:
 People thinking about religion and higher principles would be no more inclined to show
helping behavior than laymen.
 People in a rush would be much less likely to show helping behavior.
 People who are religious for personal gain would be less likely to help than people who
are religious because they want to gain some spiritual and personal insights into the meaning of
life.
Student participants were given some religious teaching and instruction and then were told to
travel from one building to the next. Between the two buildings was a man lying injured and
appearing to be in dire need of assistance. The first variable being tested was the degree of
urgency impressed upon the subjects, with some being told not to rush and others being informed
that speed was of the essence.
The results of the experiment were intriguing, with the haste of the subject proving to be the
overriding factor. When the subject was in no hurry, nearly two-thirds of people stopped to lend
assistance. When the subject was in a rush, this dropped to one in ten. People who were on the
way to deliver a speech about helping others were nearly twice as likely to help as those
delivering other sermons, showing that the thoughts of the individual were a factor in
determining helping behavior. Religious beliefs did not appear to make much difference on the
results; being religious for personal gain, or as part of a spiritual quest, did not appear to make
much of a noticeable impact on the amount of helping behavior shown
Violinist at the Metro Experiment
Study Conducted by: Staff at the Washington Post
Study Conducted in 2007 at a Washington D.C. Metro Train Station
Experiment Details: An interesting study was conducted by the staff of the Washington Post to
test how observant people are of what is going on around them.
During the study, pedestrians rushed by without realizing that the musician playing at the
entrance to the metro stop was Grammy-winning musician, Joshua Bell, who, two days before
his playing in the subway, sold out at a theater in Boston where the seats average $100. He
played one of the most intricate pieces ever written with a violin worth 3.5 million dollars. In the
45 minutes the musician played his violin, only 6 people stopped and stayed for a while. Around
20 gave him money, but continued to walk their normal pace. He collected $32.
The study and the subsequent article organized by the Washington Post was part of a social
experiment looking at perception, taste and the priorities of people. Gene Weingarten wrote
about the Washington Post social experiment (“In a banal setting at an inconvenient time, would
beauty transcend?”) and later won a Pulitzer Prize for his story. Some of the questions the article
addresses are: Do we perceive beauty? Do we stop to appreciate it? Do we recognize the talent in
an unexpected context? As it turns out, many of us are not nearly as perceptive to our
environment as we might like to think.

Carlsberg Social Experiment

Have you ever felt like people have judged you unfairly based on your appearance? Or have you
ever gotten the wrong first impression of someone based on how they looked? Unfortunately,
people are all too quick to base their decisions on snap judgments made when they first meet
people. These impressions based on what's on the outside sometimes cause people to overlook
the characteristics and qualities that lie on the inside.

In one rather amusing social experiment, which actually started out as an advertisement,
unsuspecting couples walked into a crowded movie theater. All but two of the 150 seats were
already full. The twist is that the 148 already-filled seats were taken by a bunch of rather rugged
and scary-looking male bikers.

What would you do in this situation? Would you take one of the available seats and enjoy the
movie, or would you feel intimidated and leave? In the informal experiment, not all of the
couples ended up taking a seat, but those who eventually did were rewarded with cheers from the
crowd and a round of free Carlsberg beers. The exercise served as a great example of why people
shouldn't always judge a book by its cover.

The Good Samaritan Experiment

False Consensus Experiment

During the late 1970s, researcher Lee Ross at his colleagues performed some eye-opening
experiments. In one experiment, the researchers had participants choose a way to respond to an
imagined conflict and then estimate how many people would also select the same resolution.
They found that no matter which option the respondents chose, they tended to believe that the
vast majority of other people would also choose the same option.

In another study, the experimenters asked students on campus to walk around carrying a large
advertisement that read "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.

The results of these experiments demonstrate what is known in psychology as the false

consensus effect. No matter what our beliefs, options, or behaviors, we tend to believe that the
majority of other people also agree with us and act the same way we do.

Another possibility would be to visit a public place, such as a park or a lounge area at
the mall, and have one student eat an unusual item like a blue foot-long hot dog or a
hot pink taco while the other student records bystander responses. The goal is to see
how onlookers respond to out-of-the-ordinary behavior.

You could conduct a similar experiment by spilling a handful of coins on the

pavement and observing whether individuals return the money or pocket it.  
Perform an experiment to see if people respond differently to individuals of a different
color or race. Pair up with a person of a different race, but the same gender, in your
class. Dress in the same outfit and visit your local mall. Each person of the team
should have another student follow him to document the responses. Record how long
it takes customer service representatives or sales associates to address the similarly
dressed students and document any differences in attitude, vocabulary or
attentiveness.

Marshmallow Experiment children ages four to six were taken into a room where a marshmallow
was placed on the table in front of them on a table. Before leaving each of the children alone in
the room, the experimenter informed them that they would receive a second marshmallow if the
first one was still on the table after they returned in 15 minutes. The examiner recorded how long
each child resisted eating the marshmallow and noted whether it correlated with the child’s
success in adulthood.

The activity of the social sciences, especially when conducting experiement on real live
human beings is a serious activity, not undertaken lightly. As a social scientist, the
intention would be to further our knowledge about human/social behavior. The
experiments undertaken would be directed by the research topics, questions, and
hypotheses.

If your intention is entertainment or self education, you might want to examine the
ethics involved in such an undertaking.

One thing that I can suggest is that observation is an important tool in the social
scientist’s kit. Ask a question, do some reading, form a hypothesis and go out into the
world and observe. See if the data you collect confirms or counters your hypothesis.

There are three types of experiments you need to know:

1. Laboratory / Controlled Experiments
This type of experiment is conducted in a well-controlled environment (not
necessarily a laboratory), where accurate measurements are possible.
The researcher decides where the experiment will take place, at what time, with
which participants, in what circumstances and using a standardized procedure.
Participants are randomly allocated to each independent variable group.
An example is Milgram’s experiment on obedience or Loftus and Palmer's car
crash study.

 Strength: It is easier to replicate (i.e. copy) a laboratory experiment. This

is because a standardized procedure is used.
 Strength: They allow for precise control of extraneous and independent
variables. This allows a cause and effect relationship to be established.
 Limitation: The artificiality of the setting may produce unnatural
behavior that does not reflect real life, i.e. low ecological validity. This
means it would not be possible to generalize the findings to a real life
setting.
 Limitation: Demand characteristics or experimenter effects may bias the
results and become confounding variables.

2. Field Experiments
Field experiments are done in the everyday (i.e. real life) environment of the
participants. The experimenter still manipulates the independent variable, but in
a real-life setting (so cannot really control extraneous variables).
An example is Holfing’s hospital study on obedience.

 Strength: Behavior in a field experiment is more likely to reflect real life

because of its natural setting, i.e. higher ecological validity than a lab
experiment.
 Strength: There is less likelihood of demand characteristics affecting the
results, as participants may not know they are being studied. This occurs
when the study is covert.
 Limitation: There is less control over extraneous variables that might
bias the results. This makes it difficult for another researcher to replicate
the study in exactly the same way.
3. Natural Experiments
Natural experiments are conducted in the everyday (i.e. real life) environment of
the participants, but here the experimenter has no control over the IV as it occurs
naturally in real life.
For example, Hodges and Tizard's attachment research (1989)compared the long
term development of children who have been adopted, fostered or returned to
their mothers with a control group of children who had spent all their lives in
their biological families.

 Strength: Behavior in a natural experiment is more likely to reflect real

life because of its natural setting, i.e. very high ecological validity.
 Strength: There is less likelihood of demand characteristics affecting the
results, as participants may not know they are being studied.
 Strength: Can be used in situations in which it would be ethically
unacceptable to manipulate the independent variable, e.g. researching
stress.
 Limitation: They may be more expensive and time consuming than lab
experiments.
 Limitation: There is no control over extraneous variables that might bias
the results. This makes it difficult for another researcher to replicate the
study in exactly the same way.