research question for social psychology

Social Psychology - Science topic

• asked a question related to Social Psychology
• 28 Aug 2024

• 2 Sept 2024
• 0 Recommendations

• 16 Jul 2024

• 45 Recommendations

• 23 Jun 2024

• 24 Jun 2024
• 4 Recommendations

• Understanding Human Behavior: Psychology delves into the complexities of human behavior, cognition, emotions, and motivations. In conflict situations, understanding these aspects can provide insights into why conflicts arise, how they escalate, and what drives individuals or groups to engage in violent or peaceful actions.
• Conflict Resolution: Psychology offers techniques and strategies for conflict resolution and mediation. By understanding the psychological factors contributing to conflicts, peace studies can develop more effective approaches to negotiate and resolve conflicts, promote reconciliation, and build sustainable peace.
• Trauma and Healing: Psychology plays a crucial role in addressing trauma and promoting healing in post-conflict societies. It helps in understanding the psychological impact of violence, displacement, and loss on individuals and communities, guiding interventions for psychological well-being and resilience building.
• Group Dynamics and Identity: Psychology studies group dynamics, social identity, and intergroup relations, which are central to understanding conflicts based on ethnicity, religion, nationality, or ideology. This understanding can inform strategies for fostering intergroup dialogue, promoting tolerance, and preventing conflicts rooted in identity differences.
• Behavioral Change and Peacebuilding: Psychology offers insights into behavioral change theories and techniques, which are essential for designing effective peacebuilding interventions. It helps in addressing issues like prejudice, discrimination, and radicalization by targeting attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors that contribute to conflict.
• 9 Recommendations

• 14 Recommendations

• 18 May 2024
• 1 Recommendation

• 22 Mar 2024
• Any books or ways can be recommended for self-learning?
• Any test or exam which I can take so as to prove my knowledge of psychology and statistics?
• Are there any academic forum or journal that can help me to get the updated news and ideas in psychology?
• 3 Recommendations

• 30 Mar 2024

• 28 Feb 2024
• 6 Recommendations

• 17 Feb 2024

• 26 Dec 2023

• 26 Jan 2024

• 25 Oct 2018

• DISCUSSION_D.Prokopowicz_.Does corporate social responsibility develop...social market economi es.jpg 225 kB

• 21 Jan 2024
• 15 Recommendations

• 24 Oct 2023

• 16 Nov 2023
• 25 Oct 2023
• 26 Oct 2023

• 15 Oct 2023

• 17 Oct 2023

• 25 Jun 2014

• 14 Oct 2023
• 192 Recommendations

• 14 Apr 2023

• 23 Jul 2023
• 10 Recommendations

• 12 Jun 2023

• 12 Jan 2011

• 22 May 2023

• 15 May 2023

• 8 Recommendations

• 23 Mar 2023

• 14 Dec 2022

• 14 Oct 2022

• 17 Oct 2022
• 28 Dec 2018

• QUESTIONS - Big Data_Important Topics 20 21.jpg 242 kB
• 20 Aug 2022

• ....RESEARCH TOPIC_D.Prokopowicz_The SARS-CoV-2 (Covid-19) coronavirus pandemic has forced increased internetisation.. ...jpg 283 kB
• 90 Recommendations

• 23 May 2020

• 14 Aug 2022
• 49 Recommendations

• 30 Jul 2022

• 20 Jul 2022

• 24 Jul 2022

• 1-s2.0-S0165178115307137-ma in.pdf 401 kB

• 48 Recommendations

• 12 Apr 2017

• 28 Jun 2022

• 19 Jun 2022

• 26 Dec 2021

• 30 Recommendations

• 25 Jun 2020
• 19 May 2022

• 10 Jun 2020
• 12 May 2022

• 18 Apr 2022

• 25 Apr 2022

• 18 Recommendations

• 25 Jan 2022

• 26 Jan 2022
• 30 Dec 2021
• 31 Dec 2021

• DISCUSSION_D.Prokopowicz_...Will the social aspects of interpersonal contacts..barrier...creation of electronic banks without staff 2 x.jpg 239 kB

• 168 Recommendations

• 25 Apr 2021

• 13 Oct 2021

• 26 Sept 2021

• 24 Sept 2021
• 210 Recommendations

• 31 May 2021
• 180 Recommendations
• 17 Jul 2021
• 300 Recommendations

• 29 Jul 2021
• 285 Recommendations

• 20 Sept 2021

• 22 Sept 2021

• 19 Dec 2018

• 17 Sept 2021
• 5 Recommendations

• 29 Aug 2021

• 16 Sept 2021
• 16 Recommendations

• 14 Oct 2014

• 11 Sept 2021

• 26 Dec 2020

• 5 Sept 2021
• 330 Recommendations

• 11 Aug 2021

• 18 Aug 2021
• 24 Recommendations

• 2 Recommendations

• 23 Jun 2021

• 30 Jul 2021

• Especial Experiencia ( 2).pdf 689 kB
• 21 Sept 2018

• DISCUSSION_D.Prokopowicz_.Can economic news in the media influence...psychology...investor behavior...capital marke ts.jpg 268 kB
• 25 Dec 2020
• 30 May 2021

• 2.jpg 35.4 kB
• 420 Recommendations
• 23 May 2021

• 26 May 2021
• 13 May 2021
• 14 May 2021
• 26 Recommendations

• Screenshot 2021-05-05 at 6.03.11 PM.png 10.9 kB

• 11 Apr 2020
• Are there any other theories that distinguish between internal and external perspectives/aspects of identity?
• Any info or comments on this distinction would be most welcome.

• 35 Recommendations

• 22 Mar 2021
• 30 Apr 2021
• 12 Recommendations

• 27 Apr 2021

• 21 Apr 2021

• 18 Nov 2018
• 16 Apr 2021

• 10 Apr 2021

• 11 May 2020

• DISCUSSION_D.Prokopowicz_.Are you superstitious can a scientist be superstitious 1 x.jpg 296 kB
• 345 Recommendations

• 28 Nov 2020
• 23 Feb 2021
• 10 Feb 2021

• 11 Feb 2021

• 105 Recommendations

• 19 Jan 2021

• 22 Jan 2021
• 25 Recommendations
• 30 Dec 2020

• 60 Recommendations
• 24 Dec 2020
• 36 Recommendations

• Iyer, G. R., Blut, M., Xiao, S. H., & Grewal, D. (2020). Impulse buying: a meta-analytic review. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science , 48 (3), 384-404.
• Amos, C., Holmes, G. R., & Keneson, W. C. (2014). A meta-analysis of consumer impulse buying. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services , 21 (2), 86-97.

• 84 Recommendations

• 16 Dec 2020
• 13 Dec 2020

• 5e - Schneider_2302_Chapter_8_ma in.pdf 560 kB
• 72 Recommendations

• 11 Dec 2020

• 27 Nov 2020

• 20 Recommendations

• 26 Nov 2020

• 30 Oct 2020

• 26 Feb 2010

• 17 Nov 2020

• 13 Nov 2020
• 15 Nov 2020

• 12 Oct 2020
• 19 Oct 2020
• 22 Recommendations

• 15 Sept 2020

• 15 Oct 2020
• 120 Recommendations

• 21 Sept 2020

• 27 Sept 2020

• 16 Mar 2015

• 24 Sept 2020
• 21 May 2019

• DISCUSSION_D.Prokopowicz_..Is capital significance still attributed to behavioral psychology of behavior of stock market investo rs.jpg 295 kB

• 20 Sept 2020

• 28 Aug 2020

• 18 Aug 2020

• 26 Jul 2020

• 13 Aug 2020

• 30 May 2020
• 42 Recommendations

• 30 Jul 2020

• 25 May 2020

• 29 Jul 2020

• 16 Mar 2017

• 27 Jul 2020
• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

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

Copyright © 2024 | WordPress Theme by MH Themes

• Social Psychology and Social Processes
• Reconciling cultural and professional power in psychotherapy from The Humanistic Psychologist August 30, 2024
• Sexual orientation and gender diversity research manuscript writing guide from Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity July 19, 2024
• The associations between internet use and well-being from Technology, Mind, and Behavior July 9, 2024
• Fostering school safety and valuing intersectional identities: Promoting Black queer youths’ sense of belonging in schools from Translational Issues in Psychological Science June 25, 2024
• Steady as she goes! Daily fluctuations in cognitive ability are associated with risk of Alzheimer’s disease from Neuropsychology March 22, 2024
• Risks and protective factors for young immigrant language brokers who experience discrimination from Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority March 1, 2024
• Bringing effective posttraumatic stress disorder treatment to those in need: Prolonged exposure for primary care from Psychological Services February 22, 2024
• The multicultural play therapy room: Intentional decisions on toys and materials from International Journal of Play Therapy February 6, 2024
• Workplace racial composition is an important factor for Black parents’ communication of racial socialization messages from Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology November 28, 2023
• Children’s ethnic–racial identity and mothers’ cultural socialization are protective for young Latine children’s mental health from Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology October 11, 2023
• The effects of personal and family perfectionism on psychological functioning among Asian and Latinx youths in the United States from Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology September 5, 2023
• Racial ingroup identification can predict attitudes toward paying college athletes from Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology July 13, 2023
• Your stress is my stress: Sexual minority stress and relationship functioning in female same-gender couples from Couple and Family Psychology: Research and Practice June 8, 2023
• Where manhood is fragile, men die young from Psychology of Men & Masculinities March 20, 2023
• Innovative theory and methods for the next generation of diversity, equity, and inclusion sciences from Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology March 10, 2023
• Losing my religion: Who walks away from their faith and why? from Psychology of Religion and Spirituality March 1, 2023
• Peace studies and the legacy of Emile Bruneau from Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology December 1, 2022
• Diverse audience members’ responses to diverse movie superheroes: When does a demographic match between the viewer and a character make a difference? from Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts November 30, 2022
• Group psychology and the January 6 insurrection from Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice September 15, 2022
• The positive relationship between indigenous language use and community-based well-being in four Nahua ethnic groups in Mexico from Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology August 30, 2022
• Ethnicity matters: Effects of ethnic-racial socialization for African American and Caribbean Black adolescents from Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology August 9, 2022
• How do people of color resist racism? from Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology June 28, 2022
• Social support and identity help explain how gendered racism harms Black women’s mental health from Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology May 10, 2022
• Cognitive biases can affect experts’ judgments: A broad descriptive model and systematic review in one domain from Law and Human Behavior May 4, 2022
• Sticking together: Creating cohesive collectives April 5, 2022 from Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice
• Special double issue: Savoring Buddhist and contemporary practices of mindfulness: Challenges and opportunities November 18, 2021 from The Humanistic Psychologist
• The long shadows of bad policies: A model for understanding the psychological impacts of Indian residential schools in Canada from Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne October 12, 2021
• Why are interracial interactions so hard? “Learning goals” open the door to more positive relations from Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology August 27, 2021
• How do young adult immigrants engage civically? What role does social connection play? from Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology July 28, 2021
• Does COVID-19 affect the fairness of the plea process for defendants? from Law and Human Behavior May 3, 2021
• How can we provide quality care for incarcerated transgender individuals? from Psychological Services April 19, 2021
• Resisting health mandates: A case of groupthink? from Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice March 10, 2021
• Get out of jail free? Achieving racial equity in pretrial reform from Law and Human Behavior February 5, 2021
• Moving away from using ethnicity as a proxy for cultural values from Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology December 16, 2020
• New ways of measuring “The Talk”: Considering racial socialization quality and quantity from Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology December 10, 2020
• Building a cumulative psychological science: Looking back and looking forward from Canadian Psychology / Psychologie canadienne November 30, 2020
• The group dynamics of COVID-19 from Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice November 19, 2020
• Body positivity in music: Can listening to a single song help you feel better about your body? from Psychology of Popular Media November 5, 2020
• Does better memory help to maintain physical health? from Psychology and Aging October 22, 2020
• Do beliefs about God affect suicide risk? A study of “Divine Struggle” among men recovering from substance abuse from Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity September 15, 2020
• Do beliefs about sexual orientation predict voting? Findings from the 2016 U.S. presidential election from Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity August 17, 2020
• Is this apartment still available? Maybe not for exonerees from Law and Human Behavior August 17, 2020
• Discrimination affects both physical health and relationships in Black families from Journal of Family Psychology August 17, 2020
• Toppled statues and peaceful marches: How do privileged group members react to protests for social equality? from Journal of Personality and Social Psychology July 10, 2020
• Can strongly identifying with both ethnic and national cultures protect immigrants from hostile social contexts? from Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology May 27, 2020
• Fundamental Questions in Emotion Regulation from Emotion April 21, 2020
• Does It Make Sense to Say That Groups Are Satisfied? Multilevel Measurement Models for Group Collective Constructs from Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice March 26, 2020
• How Do Recent College Graduates Navigate Ideological Bubbles? Findings From a Longitudinal Qualitative Study from Journal of Diversity in Higher Education March 24, 2020
• What Is the Role of Economic Insecurity in Health? The Unequal Burden of Sexual Assault Among Women from Psychology of Violence March 17, 2020
• Who Identifies as Queer? A Study Looks at the Partnering Patterns of Sexual Minority Populations from Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity February 24, 2020
• Current Evolutionary Perspectives on Women from Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences February 14, 2020
• Perceived Underemployment Among African American Parents: What Are the Implications for Couples’ Relationships? from Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology February 6, 2020
• Should Seeing Be Believing? Evidence-Based Recommendations by Psychologists May Reduce Mistaken Eyewitness Identifications from Law and Human Behavior January 27, 2020
• Patterns of Alcohol Use Among Minority Populations in the U.S. from American Journal of Orthopsychiatry December 17, 2019
• Was Everything Better in the Good Old Days? from Psychology and Aging December 13, 2019
• Does Cultural Revitalization Impact Academic Attainment and Healthy Living? from Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology November 27, 2019
• What’s Next for Graduate Training in Psychology in Canada? from Canadian Psychology November 13, 2019
• How Should We Decide Whom to Imprison? The Use of Risk Assessment Instruments in Sentencing Decisions from Law and Human Behavior October 23, 2019
• Are Two Heads Better Than One? The Effects of Interviewer Familiarity and Supportiveness on Children’s Testimony In Repeated Interviews from Law and Human Behavior October 9, 2019
• Basic Statistical Errors Are Common in Canadian Psychology Journals...But the Computer Programs That Detect Them Are Far From Perfect from Canadian Psychology September 24, 2019
• Connecting the Dots: Identifying Suspected Serial Sexual Offenders Through Forensic DNA Evidence from Psychology of Violence September 18, 2019
• Racial / Ethnic Differences in Caregivers' Perceptions of the Need for and Utilization of Adolescent Psychological Counseling and Support Services from Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology August 27, 2019
• New Directions in the Study of Human Emotional Development from Developmental Psychology August 23, 2019
• Can Moral Judgment, Critical Thinking, and Islamic Fundamentalism Explain ISIS and Al-Qaeda's Armed Political Violence from Psychology of Violence August 9, 2019
• Drawing Legal Age Boundaries: A Tale of Two Maturities from Law and Human Behavior July 3, 2019
• Tabling, Discussing, and Giving In: Meeting Dissent in Three Workgroups from Group Dynamics May 30, 2019
• Microaggressions: What They Are, And How They Are Associated With Adjustment Outcomes from Psychological Bulletin April 10, 2019
• Updating Maps for a Changing Territory: Redefining Youth Marginalization from American Psychologist October 12, 2018
• From Exotic to Invisible: Asian American Women's Experiences of Discrimination from Asian American Journal of Psychology July 26, 2018
• Taking A Closer Look at Social Comparison Theory from Psychological Bulletin April 19, 2018
• Age-Related Differences in Associative Memory: Empirical Evidence and Theoretical Perspectives from Psychology and Aging March 21, 2018
• Secure or Insecure? A Culturally Sensitive Tool to Assess the Emotional Components of Attachment from International Perspectives in Psychology December 15, 2017
• How Writers Create Engaging Characters: Exploring the Role of Personality, Empathy, and Experience from Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts November 29, 2017
• Learning, Interrupted: Cell Phone Calls Sidetrack Toddlers' Word Learning from Developmental Psychology November 21, 2017
• The Stories We Tell: Exploring the Professional Narratives of Latino/a Psychologists from Journal of Latina/o Psychology November 7, 2017
• Gratitude and Capacity for Prosociality: Findings from a Meta-Analytic Review from Psychological Bulletin August 16, 2017
• Does Research Support Classroom Trigger Warnings? from Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology July 27, 2017
• Campus Threat Management from Journal of Threat Assessment and Management May 5, 2017
• Is There Such a Thing as Asian Culture? Unveiling Asian American Achievement from Asian American Journal of Psychology April 12, 2017
• The Experiences of Chinese American Young Adults Who Have Gay and Lesbian Siblings from Asian American Journal of Psychology September 6, 2016
• Neural Evidence for Growth in Pure Altruism Across the Adult Life Span from Journal of Experimental Psychology: General September 1, 2016
• Are Violent Video Games Associated With More Civic Behaviors Among Youth? from Psychology of Popular Media Culture August 9, 2016
• A Sex Difference in Sports Interest: What Does Evolution Say? from Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences May 4, 2016
• What's the Relational Toll of Living in a Sexist and Heterosexist Context? from Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity March 23, 2016
• Dealing With the Past: Survivors of Severe Human Rights Abuses and Their Perspectives on Economic Reparations in Argentina from International Perspectives in Psychology January 28, 2016
• Is Suicide a Tragic Variant of an Evolutionarily Adaptive Set of Behaviors? from Psychological Review January 12, 2016
• Special Issue on Collective Harmdoing from Peace and Conflict December 8, 2015
• Evaluators, Not Just Those They Evaluate, Influence Personality Test Results from Law and Human Behavior December 2, 2015
• The New Normal? Addressing Gun Violence in America from American Journal of Orthopsychiatry May 28, 2015
• Gay and Poor: The Intersection of Sexual Orientation and Socioeconomic Status from Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity March 17, 2015
• You're So Gay: Homophobic Name Calling as Bullying Behavior from American Journal of Orthopsychiatry February 24, 2015
• The Behavioral Immune System: Taking Stock and Charting New Directions from Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences December 2, 2014
• Gay and Married, or Single and Straight? from Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity November 12, 2014
• Heaven, Help Us from Journal of Family Psychology October 22, 2014
• It Gets Better, Right? from Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Sexual Diversity September 16, 2014
• Does Children's Biological Functioning Predict Parenting Behavior? from Developmental Psychology September 10, 2014
• We're in This Together from Journal of Family Psychology August 12, 2014
• The Chief Diversity Officer from Journal of Diversity in Higher Education July 24, 2014
• There's No Place Like Home from American Journal of Orthopsychiatry June 11, 2014
• Sexual Orientation and Custody Disputes: How Research Can Influence Policy and Practice from Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity April 28, 2014
• Replication from Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts March 24, 2014
• What a Piece of Work Is a Man from Psychology of Men and Masculinity October 23, 2013
• Predicting and Preventing Sexual Aggression by College Men from Psychology of Violence September 12, 2013
• When Two Wrongs Make a Third Wrong from Law and Human Behavior September 10, 2013
• Fighting Fire With Fire from Psychology of Violence August 13, 2013

View more journals in the Social Psychology and Social Processes subject area.

APA Journals Article Spotlight ®

APA Journals Article Spotlight is a free summary of recently published articles in an APA Journal .

Browse Article Spotlight topics

• Basic/Experimental Psychology
• Clinical Psychology
• Core of Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology, School Psychology, and Training
• Forensic Psychology
• Health Psychology and Medicine
• Industrial/Organizational Psychology and Management
• Neuroscience and Cognition

Contact APA Publications

Current Research in Social Psychology

Editors: michael lovaglia, university of iowa; shane soboroff, st. ambrose university.

Current Research in Social Psychology  ( CRISP ) is a peer reviewed, electronic journal publishing theoretically driven, empirical research in major areas of social psychology. Publication is sponsored by the  Center for the Study of Group Processes  at the  University of Iowa,  which provides free access to its contents. Authors retain copyright for their work. CRISP is permanently archived at the Library of the University of Iowa and at the Library of Congress. Beginning in April, 2000,  Sociological Abstracts  publishes the abstracts of CRISP articles.

Citation Format:  Lastname ,  Firstname . 1996. "Title of Article."  Current Research in Social Psychology  2:15-22 https://crisp.org.uiowa.edu

RECENT ISSUES

Finding Positives in the Pandemic: The Role of Relationship Status, Self-Esteem, Mental Health, and Personality.

Examining Public Attitudes And Ideological Divides Through Media Engagement: An Empirical Analysis of Moral Foundations Theory Amidst the Covid-19 Pandemic.

When Race is Not Enough: Lessons Learned Using Racially Tagged Names.

Formation of a Positive Social Identity: How Significant are Attitudes, Subjective Norms, and Perceived Similarity Concerning Group Identification?

Passive Social Network Usage and Hedonic Well-Being Among Vietnamese University Students: A Moderated Mediation Model Involving Self-Esteem and Sense of Self.

Cognitive Dissonance and Depression: A Qualitative Exploration of a Close Relationship.

Gender Differences in Support for Collective Punishment: The Moderating Role of Malleability Mindset.

Hard Feelings? Predicting Attitudes Toward Former Romantic Partners.

Perceived Control in Multiple Option Scenarios: Choice, Control, and the Make-a-Difference Metric.

Drivers of Prosocial Behavior: Exploring the Role of Mindset and Perceived Cost.

Malleability of Laïcité: People with High Social Dominance Orientation Use Laïcité to Legitimize Public Prayer by Catholics but not by Muslims.

Differences and Predictive Abilities of Competitiveness Between Motivation Levels, Contexts, and Sex.

Parental Rejection and Peer Acceptance: The Mediating Role of Cognitive Bias.

A Novel Approach for Measuring Self-Affirmation.

Ingroup Bias in the Context of Meat Consumption: Direct and Indirect Attitudes Toward Meat-Eaters and Vegetarians.

Perceptions of Case Complexity and Pre-Trial Publicity Through the Lens of Information Processing.

"Muslims' Desire for Intergroup Revenge in the Aftermath of the Christchurch Attack: The Predictive Role of Ingroup Identification, Perceived Intergroup Threat, and the Norm of Reciprocity. "

"Personal Networks and Social Support in Disaster Contexts."

"Aggressive and Avoidant Action Tendencies Towards Out-Groups: The Distinct Roles of In-Group Attachment vs. Glorification and Cognitive vs. Affective Ambivalence."

"We (Might) Want You: Expectations of Veterans' General Competence and Leadership."

"Situation Attribution Mediates Intention to Overlook Negative Signals Among Romantic Partners."

"Software Program, Bot, or Artificial Intelligence? Affective Sentiments across General Technology Labels"

"Privilege is Invisible to Those Who Have It": Some Evidence that Men Underestimate the Magnitude of Gender Differences in Income.

"Perceived Control and Intergroup Discrimination."  

"Leadership, Gender, and Vocal Dynamics in Small Groups."

Taking Responsibility for an Offense: Being Forgiven Encourages More Personal Responsibility, More Empathy for the Victim, and Less Victim Blame.

Potential Factors Influencing Attitudes Toward Veterans Who Commit Crimes: An Experimental Investigation of PTSD in the Legal System.

"Is that Discrimination? I'd Better Report it!" Self-presentation Concerns Moderate the Prototype Effect.

Relation Between Attitudinal Trust and Behavioral Trust: An Exploratory Study

Comparing Groups' Affective Sentiments to Group Perceptions.

Perceived Autonomous Help and Recipients' Well-Being: Is Autonomous Help Good for Everyone.

S tudying Gay and Straight Males' Implicit Gender Attitudes to Understand Previously Found Gender Differences in Implicit In-Group Bias.

Nepotistic Preferences in a Computerized Trolley Problem.

Telecommuting, Primary Caregiving, and Gender as Status .

You're Either With Us or Against Us: In-Group Favoritism and Threat .

 Impact of the Anticipation of Membership Change on Transactive Memory and Group Performance.

Mindfulness Increases Analytical Thought and Decreases Just World Beliefs .

Status, Performance Expectations, and Affective Impressions: An Experimental Replication.

The Effects of African-American Stereotype Fluency on Prejudicial Evaluation of Targets .

Status Characteristics and Self-Categoriation: A Bridge Across theoretical Traditions.

Why do Extraverts Feel More Positive Affect and Life Satisfaction? The Indirect Effects of Social Contribution and Sense of Power.

In-group Attachment and Glorification, Perceptions of Cognition-Based Ambivalence as Contributing to the Group, and Positive Affect.

Mentoring to Improve a Child's Self-Concept: Longitudinal Effects of Social Intervention on Identity and Negative Outcomes.

Affect, Emotion, and Cross-Cultural Differences in Moral Attributions.

The Effects of Counterfactual Thinking on College Students' Intentions to Quit Smoking Cigarettes .

Self-Enhancement, Self-Protection and Ingroup Bias.

The Moderating Effect of Socio-emotional Factors on the Relationship Between Status and Influence in Status Characteristics Theory.

What We Know About People Shapes the Inferences We Make About Their Personalities.

The Pros and Cons of Ingroup Ambivalence: The Moderating Roles of Attitudinal Basis and Individual Differences in Ingroup Attachment and Glorification.

Effects of Social Anxiety and Group Membership of Potential Affiliates on Social Reconnection After Ostracism.

"Yes, I Decide You Will Recieve Your Choice": Effects of Authoritative Agreement on Perceptions of Control.

Being Generous to Look Good: Perceived Stigma Increases Prosocial Behavior in Smokers.

Acting White? Black Young Adults Devalue Same-Race Targets for Demonstrating Positive-but-Stereotypically White Traits

Looking Up for Answers: Upward Gaze Increases Receptivity to Advice

Which Judgement Do Women Expect from a Female Observer When They Claim to be a Victim of Sexism?

Neighborhood Deterioration and Perceptions of Race

The Use of Covert and Overt Jealousy Tactics in Romantic Relationships: The Moderating Role of Relationship Satisfaction

The Impact of Status Differences on Gatekeeping: A Theoretical Bridge and Bases for Investigation

Reducing Prejudice with (Elaborated) Imagined and Physical Intergroup Contact Interverventions

Are Depressed Individuals More Susceptible to Cognitive Dissonance?

Gender Differences in the Need to Belong: Different Cognitive Representations of the Same Social Groups

Fight The Power: Comparing and Evaluating Two Measures of French and Raven's (1959) Bases of Social Power

Mother Knows Best So Mother Fails Most: Benevolent Stereotypes and the Punishment of Parenting Mistakes

Blame Attributions about Disloyalty

Attitudes Towards Muslims are More Favorable on a Survery than on an Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure

Attributions to Low Group Effort can Make You Feel Better: The Distinct Roles of In-group Identification, Legitimacy of Intergroup Status, and Controllability Perceptions

The Role of Collective and Personal Self-Esteem in a Military Context

On Bended Knee: Embodiment and Religious Judgments

Identity Salience and Identity Importance in Identity Theory

Sexist Humor and Beliefs that Justify Societal Sexism

Future-Oriented People Show Stronger Moral Concerns

Further Examining the Buffering Effect of Self-Esteem and Mastery on Emotions

Group-Based Resiliency: Contrasting the Negative Effects of Threat to the In-Group

You Validate Me, You Like Me, You're Fun, You Expand Me: "I'm Yours!"

Pleading Innocents: Laboratory Evidence of Plea Bargaining's Innocence Problem

The Moral Identity and Group Affiliation

Threat, Prejudice, and Stereotyping in the Context of Japanese, North Korean, and South Korean Intergroup Relations

Exams may be Dangerous to Grandpa's Health: How Inclusive Fitness Influences Students' Fraudulent Excuses

To View Archived CRISP Issues Click here

To View the Notice for Contributors Click here . Includes formatting and citation guidelines.

To View the Editorial Board Click here

Instant insights, infinite possibilities

61 intriguing psychology research topics to explore

Last updated

11 January 2024

Reviewed by

Brittany Ferri, PhD, OTR/L

Short on time? Get an AI generated summary of this article instead

Psychology is an incredibly diverse, critical, and ever-changing area of study in the medical and health industries. Because of this, it’s a common area of study for students and healthcare professionals.

We’re walking you through picking the perfect topic for your upcoming paper or study. Keep reading for plenty of example topics to pique your interest and curiosity.

• How to choose a psychology research topic

Exploring a psychology-based topic for your research project? You need to pick a specific area of interest to collect compelling data. 

Use these tips to help you narrow down which psychology topics to research:

Focus on a particular area of psychology

The most effective psychological research focuses on a smaller, niche concept or disorder within the scope of a study. 

Psychology is a broad and fascinating area of science, including everything from diagnosed mental health disorders to sports performance mindset assessments. 

This gives you plenty of different avenues to explore. Having a hard time choosing? Check out our list of 61 ideas further down in this article to get started.

Read the latest clinical studies

Once you’ve picked a more niche topic to explore, you need to do your due diligence and explore other research projects on the same topic. 

This practice will help you learn more about your chosen topic, ask more specific questions, and avoid covering existing projects. 

For the best results, we recommend creating a research folder of associated published papers to reference throughout your project. This makes it much easier to cite direct references and find inspiration down the line.

Find a topic you enjoy and ask questions

Once you’ve spent time researching and collecting references for your study, you finally get to explore. 

Whether this research project is for work, school, or just for fun, having a passion for your research will make the project much more enjoyable. (Trust us, there will be times when that is the only thing that keeps you going.) 

Now you’ve decided on the topic, ask more nuanced questions you might want to explore. 

If you can, pick the direction that interests you the most to make the research process much more enjoyable.

• 61 psychology topics to research in 2024

Need some extra help starting your psychology research project on the right foot? Explore our list of 61 cutting-edge, in-demand psychology research topics to use as a starting point for your research journey.

• Psychology research topics for university students

As a university student, it can be hard to pick a research topic that fits the scope of your classes and is still compelling and unique. 

Here are a few exciting topics we recommend exploring for your next assigned research project:

Mental health in post-secondary students

Seeking post-secondary education is a stressful and overwhelming experience for most students, making this topic a great choice to explore for your in-class research paper. 

Examples of post-secondary mental health research topics include:

Student mental health status during exam season

Mental health disorder prevalence based on study major

The impact of chronic school stress on overall quality of life

The impacts of cyberbullying

Cyberbullying can occur at all ages, starting as early as elementary school and carrying through into professional workplaces. 

Examples of cyberbullying-based research topics you can study include:

The impact of cyberbullying on self-esteem

Common reasons people engage in cyberbullying 

Cyberbullying themes and commonly used terms

Cyberbullying habits in children vs. adults

The long-term effects of cyberbullying

• Clinical psychology research topics

If you’re looking to take a more clinical approach to your next project, here are a few topics that involve direct patient assessment for you to consider:

Chronic pain and mental health

Living with chronic pain dramatically impacts every aspect of a person’s life, including their mental and emotional health. 

Here are a few examples of in-demand pain-related psychology research topics:

The connection between diabetic neuropathy and depression

Neurological pain and its connection to mental health disorders

Efficacy of meditation and mindfulness for pain management

The long-term effects of insomnia

Insomnia is where you have difficulty falling or staying asleep. It’s a common health concern that impacts millions of people worldwide. 

This is an excellent topic because insomnia can have a variety of causes, offering many research possibilities. 

Here are a few compelling psychology research topics about insomnia you could investigate:

The prevalence of insomnia based on age, gender, and ethnicity

Insomnia and its impact on workplace productivity

The connection between insomnia and mental health disorders

Efficacy and use of melatonin supplements for insomnia

The risks and benefits of prescription insomnia medications

Lifestyle options for managing insomnia symptoms

The efficacy of mental health treatment options

Management and treatment of mental health conditions is an ever-changing area of study. If you can witness or participate in mental health therapies, this can make a great research project. 

Examples of mental health treatment-related psychology research topics include:

The efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for patients with severe anxiety

The benefits and drawbacks of group vs. individual therapy sessions

Music therapy for mental health disorders

Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) for patients with depression 

• Controversial psychology research paper topics

If you are looking to explore a more cutting-edge or modern psychology topic, you can delve into a variety of controversial and topical options:

The impact of social media and digital platforms

Ever since access to internet forums and video games became more commonplace, there’s been growing concern about the impact these digital platforms have on mental health. 

Examples of social media and video game-related psychology research topics include:

The effect of edited images on self-confidence

How social media platforms impact social behavior

Video games and their impact on teenage anger and violence

Digital communication and the rapid spread of misinformation

The development of digital friendships

Psychotropic medications for mental health

In recent years, the interest in using psychoactive medications to treat and manage health conditions has increased despite their inherently controversial nature. 

Examples of psychotropic medication-related research topics include:

The risks and benefits of using psilocybin mushrooms for managing anxiety

The impact of marijuana on early-onset psychosis

Childhood marijuana use and related prevalence of mental health conditions

Ketamine and its use for complex PTSD (C-PTSD) symptom management

The effect of long-term psychedelic use and mental health conditions

• Mental health disorder research topics

As one of the most popular subsections of psychology, studying mental health disorders and how they impact quality of life is an essential and impactful area of research. 

While studies in these areas are common, there’s always room for additional exploration, including the following hot-button topics:

Anxiety and depression disorders

Anxiety and depression are well-known and heavily researched mental health disorders. 

Despite this, we still don’t know many things about these conditions, making them great candidates for psychology research projects:

Social anxiety and its connection to chronic loneliness

C-PTSD symptoms and causes

The development of phobias

Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) behaviors and symptoms

Depression triggers and causes

Self-care tools and resources for depression

The prevalence of anxiety and depression in particular age groups or geographic areas

Bipolar disorder

Bipolar disorder is a complex and multi-faceted area of psychology research. 

Use your research skills to learn more about this condition and its impact by choosing any of the following topics:

Early signs of bipolar disorder

The incidence of bipolar disorder in young adults

The efficacy of existing bipolar treatment options

Bipolar medication side effects

Cognitive behavioral therapy for people with bipolar 

Schizoaffective disorder

Schizoaffective disorder is often stigmatized, and less common mental health disorders are a hotbed for new and exciting research. 

Here are a few examples of interesting research topics related to this mental health disorder:

The prevalence of schizoaffective disorder by certain age groups or geographic locations

Risk factors for developing schizoaffective disorder

The prevalence and content of auditory and visual hallucinations

Alternative therapies for schizoaffective disorder

• Societal and systematic psychology research topics

Modern society’s impact is deeply enmeshed in our mental and emotional health on a personal and community level. 

Here are a few examples of societal and systemic psychology research topics to explore in more detail:

Access to mental health services

While mental health awareness has risen over the past few decades, access to quality mental health treatment and resources is still not equitable. 

This can significantly impact the severity of a person’s mental health symptoms, which can result in worse health outcomes if left untreated. 

Explore this crucial issue and provide information about the need for improved mental health resource access by studying any of the following topics:

Rural vs. urban access to mental health resources

Access to crisis lines by location

Wait times for emergency mental health services

Inequities in mental health access based on income and location

Insurance coverage for mental health services

Systemic racism and mental health

Societal systems and the prevalence of systemic racism heavily impact every aspect of a person’s overall health.

Researching these topics draws attention to existing problems and contributes valuable insights into ways to improve access to care moving forward.

Examples of systemic racism-related psychology research topics include: 

Access to mental health resources based on race

The prevalence of BIPOC mental health therapists in a chosen area

The impact of systemic racism on mental health and self-worth

Racism training for mental health workers

The prevalence of mental health disorders in discriminated groups

LGBTQIA+ mental health concerns

Research about LGBTQIA+ people and their mental health needs is a unique area of study to explore for your next research project. It’s a commonly overlooked and underserved community.

Examples of LGBTQIA+ psychology research topics to consider include:

Mental health supports for queer teens and children

The impact of queer safe spaces on mental health

The prevalence of mental health disorders in the LGBTQIA+ community

The benefits of queer mentorship and found family

Substance misuse in LQBTQIA+ youth and adults

• Collect data and identify trends with Dovetail

Psychology research is an exciting and competitive study area, making it the perfect choice for projects or papers.

Take the headache out of analyzing your data and instantly access the insights you need to complete your next psychology research project by teaming up with Dovetail today.

Should you be using a customer insights hub?

Do you want to discover previous research faster?

Do you share your research findings with others?

Do you analyze research data?

Start for free today, add your research, and get to key insights faster

Editor’s picks

Last updated: 18 April 2023

Last updated: 27 February 2023

Last updated: 22 August 2024

Last updated: 5 February 2023

Last updated: 16 August 2024

Last updated: 9 March 2023

Last updated: 30 April 2024

Last updated: 12 December 2023

Last updated: 11 March 2024

Last updated: 4 July 2024

Last updated: 6 March 2024

Last updated: 5 March 2024

Last updated: 13 May 2024

Latest articles

Related topics, .css-je19u9{-webkit-align-items:flex-end;-webkit-box-align:flex-end;-ms-flex-align:flex-end;align-items:flex-end;display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-flex-direction:row;-ms-flex-direction:row;flex-direction:row;-webkit-box-flex-wrap:wrap;-webkit-flex-wrap:wrap;-ms-flex-wrap:wrap;flex-wrap:wrap;-webkit-box-pack:center;-ms-flex-pack:center;-webkit-justify-content:center;justify-content:center;row-gap:0;text-align:center;max-width:671px;}@media (max-width: 1079px){.css-je19u9{max-width:400px;}.css-je19u9>span{white-space:pre;}}@media (max-width: 799px){.css-je19u9{max-width:400px;}.css-je19u9>span{white-space:pre;}} decide what to .css-1kiodld{max-height:56px;display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;}@media (max-width: 1079px){.css-1kiodld{display:none;}} build next, decide what to build next, log in or sign up.

Get started for free

• How it works

Useful Links

How much will your dissertation cost?

Have an expert academic write your dissertation paper!

Dissertation Services

Get unlimited topic ideas and a dissertation plan for just £45.00

Order topics and plan

Get 1 free topic in your area of study with aim and justification

Yes I want the free topic

35 Best Social Psychology Dissertation Topics

Published by Carmen Troy at January 2nd, 2023 , Revised On August 11, 2023

A dissertation or a thesis paper is the fundamental prerequisite to the degree programme, irrespective of your academic discipline. The field of social psychology is not different.

When working on the dissertation, the students must demonstrate what they wish to accomplish with their study. They must be authentic with their ideas and solutions to achieve the highest possible academic grade.

A dissertation in social psychology should examine the influence others have on people’s behaviour. This is because the interaction of people in different groups is the main focus of the discipline. Social connections in person are the main focus of social psychology and therefore your chosen social psychology topic should be based on a real-life social experience or phenomenon.

Also read: Sociology dissertation topics

We have compiled a list of the top social psychology dissertation topics to help you get started.

List of Social Psychology Dissertation Topics

• What impact do priming’s automatic effects have on complex behaviour in everyday life?
• The social intuitionist model examines the role that emotion and reason play in moral decision-making.
• Examine the lasting effects of cognitive dissonance.
• What psychological consequences does spanking have on kids?
• Describe the consequences and root causes of childhood attention-deficit / hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
• Explain the causes of antisocial behaviour in young people.
• Discuss infants’ early warning symptoms of mental disease.
• List the main factors that young adults most commonly experience; increased stress and depression.
• Describe several forms of torture in detail, emphasising how they affect children’s minds and adult lives.
• Describe the impact of violent video games and music on a child’s development.
• Talk about how the family influences early non-verbal communication in infants.
• Examine the scope and persistence of the variables influencing the impact of automatic priming on social behaviour.
• What does this mean for upholding one’s integrity and comprehending interpersonal relationships?
• Examine the connection between loneliness and enduring health issues.
• Identify several approaches to measuring older people’s social networks.
• Compare and contrast the types of social networks, housing, and elderly people’s health across time.
• The primary causes of young people’s moral decline are social influences. Discuss.
• Discuss what has improved our understanding of social psychology using examples from social psychology theories.
• What are the socio-psychological reasons and consequences of drinking alcohol?
• What makes some persons more attractive in social situations?
• Discuss how culture affects a society’s ability to be cohesive and united.
• Discuss how a person’s career affects their social standing in society.
• What psychological effects might long-term caregiving have?
• How ddoesa leader’s relationship and followers change under charismatic leadership?
• Discuss the tactics that support and thwart interpersonal harmony using the group identity theory as your foundation.
• Discuss the benefits and drawbacks of intimate cross-cultural relationships.
• Examine and clarify the socio-psychological components of cults using examples.
• Discuss how sociocultural perceptions have an impact on socio-psychology.
• How has technology affected communication and interpersonal relationships?
• What part does religion play in bringing people together?
• Describe the socio-psychological impacts of dense population and crowded living.
• What are the effects of a child’s introverted personality on others?
• Explain how carelessness on the part of parents and childhood obesity are related.
• Study the psychological, moral, and legal ramifications of adoption.
• What are the corrective and preventative steps that can stop child abuse?

Note:  Along with free dissertation topics , ResearchProspect also provide top-notch dissertation writing services at the best price to ease the excessive study load.

Hire a Dissertation Writer

Orders completed by our expert writers are

• Formally drafted in an academic style
• Free Amendments and 100% Plagiarism Free – or your money back!
• 100% Confidential and Timely Delivery!
• Free anti-plagiarism report
• Appreciated by thousands of clients. Check client reviews

Choosing social psychology dissertation topics can be frustrating. We have provided you with original dissertation topic suggestions to aid you in developing a thought-provoking and worthwhile dissertation for your degree.

If you need help with the complete dissertation writing process, you may want to additionally read about our proposal writing service and the full dissertation writing service .

Free Dissertation Topic

Phone Number

Academic Level Select Academic Level Undergraduate Graduate PHD

Academic Subject

Area of Research

Frequently Asked Questions

How to find social psychology dissertation topics.

To discover social psychology dissertation topics:

• Explore recent research in journals.
• Investigate real-world social issues.
• Examine psychological theories.
• Consider cultural influences.
• Brainstorm topics aligned with your passion.
• Aim for novelty and significance in your chosen area.

You May Also Like

Need interesting and manageable history dissertation topics or thesis? Here are the trending history dissertation titles so you can choose the most suitable one.

Engineering is one of the most rewarding careers in the world. With solid research, investigation and analysis, engineering students dig deep through different engineering scopes to complete their degrees.

Medical law becomes increasingly important as healthcare dominates as a social issue. Graduate students must select a thesis subject as part of their programs. The subject you choose must have sufficient data to support your thesis.

USEFUL LINKS

LEARNING RESOURCES

COMPANY DETAILS

• How It Works

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.

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.

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?

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 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

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 1.4 “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 .

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.”

Figure 1.4 The Operational Definition

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

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.

I like Robert.

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 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.

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 1.5 “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.

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.

Table 1.4 Three Major Research Designs Used by Social Psychologists

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 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.

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 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.

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 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.

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 to you, 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 1.6 “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

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.

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.

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

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 1.7 “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 (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).

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 , 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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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 1.9 Some Important Aspects of the Scientific Approach

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.

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.

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.

•   [email protected]

Psychology Research Guide

Social psychology.

Social psychologists study the influence of social perception and interaction on individual and group behavior. The following resources can help you narrow your topic, learn about the language used to describe psychology topics, and get you up to speed on the major advancements in this field.

• Social Psychology search results on the American Psychological Association's website This link opens in a ne

Social Psychology Databases

Research in social psychology utilizes core psychology resources, as well as resources in communication and sociology. You may find it helpful to search the following databases for your social psychology topics or research questions, in addition to the core resources listed on the home page.

Social Psychology Subject Headings

You may find it helpful to take advantage of predefined subjects or subject headings in Shapiro Databases. These subjects are applied to articles and books by expert catalogers to help you find materials on your topic. Learn more about subject searching:

• Subject Searching

Consider using databases to perform subject searches, or incorporating words from applicable subjects into your keyword searches. Here are some social psychology subjects to consider:

• personality
• social psychology
• social anxiety
• social influence

Social Psychology Example Search

Not sure what you want to research exactly, but want to get a feel for the resources available? Try the following search in any of the databases listed above:

(behavioral OR social) AND Psych*

There isn't just one accepted word for this area of psychology, so we use OR boolean operators to tell the database any of the listed terms are relevant to our search. We use parenthesis to organize our search, and we stem or truncate the word psychology with the asterisk to tell the database that any ending of the word, as long as the letters psych are at the beginning of the word, will do. This way, the word psychological and other related terms will also be included.

• Learn more about Boolean Operators/Boolean Searching

Social Psychology Organization Websites

• Association for Research in Personality This link opens in a new window The Association for Research in Personality is a scientific organization devoted to bringing together scholars whose research contributes to the understanding of personality structure, development, and dynamics.
• Personality Pedagogy This link opens in a new window
• Personality Project This link opens in a new window
• Society for Personality and Social Psychology This link opens in a new window The Society for Personality and Social Psychology, founded in 1974, is the world’s largest organization of social and personality psychologists. With over 7,500 members, SPSP strives to advance the science, teaching, and application of social and personality psychology. The mission of SPSP is to advance the science, teaching, and application of social and personality psychology. SPSP members aspire to understand individuals in their social contexts for the benefit of all people.
• Society of Experimental Social Psychology This link opens in a new window The Society of Experimental Social Psychology (SESP) is a scientific organization dedicated to the advancement of social psychology.
• << Previous: Mental Health
• Next: Conducting Psychological Research >>

• 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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Sweepstakes
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2024 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

Major Social Psychology Perspectives

Paul Biris / Getty Images

Sociocultural Perspective

Evolutionary perspective, social learning perspective, social-cognitive perspective.

Have you ever wondered why people sometimes act differently when they are in a crowd? Or have you ever wondered how society at large influences your own behavior? Social psychologists look at these sorts of questions, but like many other fields within psychology, they often utilize different perspectives when looking at questions about social behavior.

At a Glance

When looking at social behavior, social psychologists often take different perspectives to look at certain aspects of the situation. These perspectives inform how researchers consider the problem and the types of explanations they might explore. The four main social psychology perspectives that researchers might use are:

• The sociocultural perspective
• The evolutionary perspective
• The social learning perspective
• The social cognitive perspective

Think of each perspective as a lens through which psychologists can look at different aspects of human behavior. Learning about each perspective can give you a greater understanding of the many influences that can affect people's behavior in groups.

The sociocultural perspective in social psychology stresses the importance of social norms and culture in explaining human behavior.

This approach proposes that children learn behavior through problem-solving interactions with other children and adults. Through these interactions, they learn the values and norms of their society.

Social psychologists using this perspective might look at how cultural norms and social influence impact social behavior. When considering something like aggression , for example, a person taking this perspective would look at how people are socialized to behave aggressively in certain situations.

The evolutionary perspective in social psychology argues that social behaviors develop through genetics and inheritance. It primarily takes the "nature" side of the nature vs. nurture debate , suggesting that genetic influences play the most significant role in shaping human behaviors.

This perspective emphasizes the role of biology and gene transmission across generations to explain current behavior.

You can get a better idea of how this perspective works by looking at how social psychologists might apply it. When looking at a social problem such as aggression, a psychologist taking this perspective would consider how genetics and evolutionary influences contributed to the development of the behavior.

The social learning perspective in social psychology stresses the importance of unique experiences in families, school, and communities.

According to this viewpoint, we learn behaviors by observing and mimicking the behavior of others. Psychologist Albert Bandura made important contributions to this area of social psychology. His theory of observational learning suggests that a great deal of learning occurs by watching others.

In our earlier example of aggression, someone taking the social learning perspective would be interested in how people learn aggressive behaviors from parents, peers, and media influences.

The social learning approach can also be used to help explain how peers, role models, and mentors play an important part in teaching social behaviors.

The social-cognitive perspective in social psychology supports an information-processing model of social behavior. According to this model, how we notice, interpret, and judge the behavior of others plays an important part in social behavior and interactions.

New experiences can either be assimilated (using already-held beliefs to interpret the event) or accommodated (which involves changing existing beliefs in response to the event.)

By understanding how information is processed, we can better understand how patterns of thoughts impact behavior.

How Psychologists Use Social Psychology Perspectives

Looking at how social psychologists might utilize these perspectives can help you better appreciate how each one might affect the research process. For example, imagine that researchers are trying to understand interpersonal aggression. Researchers might opt to view the problem through the lens of one of these perspectives:

• Evolutionary : Someone taking an evolutionary perspective might look at how biology and genetic inheritance play a role in aggressive behavior.
• Social learning : Another social psychologist might approach the same problem from the social learning perspective and analyze the various environmental influences that contribute to aggression, including family, friends, and popular culture.
• Sociocultural : Someone taking a sociocultural perspective might look at broader cultural patterns to understand how these influences contribute to individual aggression in a society.
• Social-cognitive : Psychologists using a social-cognitive perspective might want to study how our interpretations of other people's behaviors might play a part in aggressive behaviors or how other people understand and explain the aggressive actions of others.

How Perspectives Are Used Today

While some social psychologists tend to have a dominant perspective, many researchers draw on a variety of theories when tackling a question or hypothesis. In other words, a psychologist might use a certain lens to view a problem, but will also consider how other factors might also play a role.

By understanding all of the many influences that contribute to social behavior, including culture, social learning, genetics, and individual differences, researchers can gain a deeper understanding of the many forces that influence how people think and act in social situations.

Vasileva O, Balyasnikova N. (Re)Introducing Vygotsky’s thought: From historical overview to contemporary psychology . Frontiers in Psychology . 2019;10. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01515

Seiffert-Brockmann J. Evolutionary psychology: A framework for strategic communication research . International Journal of Strategic Communication . 2018;12(4):417-432. doi:10.1080/1553118x.2018.1490291

Kühn S, Kugler DT, Schmalen K, Weichenberger M, Witt C, Gallinat J.  Does playing violent video games cause aggression? A longitudinal intervention study.  Mol Psychiatry . 2019;24(8):1220-1234. doi:10.1038/s41380-018-0031-7

Heyes C. What’s social about social learning? Journal of Comparative Psychology . 2012;126(2):193-202. doi:10.1037/a0025180

Schunk DH. Social cognitive theory . APA educational psychology handbook, Vol 1: Theories, constructs, and critical issues . 2012;1:101-123. doi:10.1037/13273-005

Leipold B, Bermeitinger C, Greve W, Meyer B, Arnold M, Pielniok M. Short-term induction of assimilation and accommodation . Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology . 2014;67(12):2392-2408. doi:10.1080/17470218.2014.931443

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

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