A social experiment is a method of psychological or sociological research that observes people's reactions to certain situations or events. The experiment depends on a particular social approach where the main source of information is the participants' point of view and knowledge. To carry out a social experiment, specialists usually split participants into two groups — active participants (people who take action in particular events) and respondents (people who react to the action). Throughout the experiment, specialists monitor participants to identify the effects and differences resulting from the experiment. A conclusion is then created based on the results. Intentional communities are generally considered social experiments as each is a practical application of a theory. Social psychology offers insight into how individuals act in groups and how behavior is affected by social burdens and pressures. In most social experiments, the subjects are unaware that they are partaking in an experiment as to prevent bias; however, this may bring ethical issues (see ethics section). Several "actors" or "plants" are used to study social behaviors. Companies have also used social experiments to collect consumer data and their opinions about a product or a particular topic.
History In 1895, American psychologist Norman Triplett constructed one of the earliest known social experiments, in which he found out that cyclists rode their bikes faster when racing against another person than when they raced against a clock. Norman found similar results, through another experiment, where he asked children to turn fishing reels both alone and with other children present. Field social experiments had proved to be efficient as they reflect real life due to their natural setting. The social experiments commonly referred to today were conducted decades later. These experiments too place in a laboratory or other controlled setting. An example of this was Stanley Milgram's obedience experiment in 1963. Social experiments began in the United States as a test of the negative income tax concept in the late 1960s and since then have been conducted on all the populated continents. During the 1970s, criticism of the ethics and accusations of gender and racial bias led to a reassessment of both the field of social psychology and the conducted experiments. While experimental methods were still employed, other methods gained popularity. Social experiments are sometimes used to evaluate utopian proposals. Such was the Utopia Experiment which took place in Scotland in 2006.
Ethics Social experimentation has raised many ethical concerns, due to its manipulation of large population groups, often without the consent or knowledge of the subjects. In some instances, social experimentation has been staged unknowingly to the viewer to promote the image of the individual or for the pure purpose of generating controversy. Researchers also believed that the impact of Informal Social Experiments via social media videos may have negative consequences on formal social marketing research as well as the society in general, detailing that while Informal Social Experiments address moral and social issues such as child safety, self-confidence, etc., producers of these social experiments might do it for their gain and benefits.
Well-known social experiments
Bystander apathy (effect)
Based on the murder of Kitty Genovese outside her home, The New York Times stated that there were 38 witnesses who either saw or heard the fatal stabbing take place, and not a single person came to her aid. Although this number was proven to be exaggerated, this murder was coined "bystander apathy" by social psychologists Bibb Latané and John Darley in 1968. For their experiment, Latané and Darley tried to replicate the Genovese slaying by having participants aware of each other but unable to communicate directly. Each participant was in a cubicle in contact with the other via a microphone; however, only one voice was allowed to speak at a time. A taped recording was played of a participant having an epileptic seizure. When the participant believed themselves to be alone they invariably attempted to find help. When the participant believed others were around the speed and frequency of response declined significantly. The authors concluded that situational factors play an influential role in bystander apathy. People are less likely to help in an emergency if other people are present. Two reasons were offered by Latané and Darley: first is the diffusion of responsibility, and second is pluralistic ignorance or the mentality that if nobody else is helping, then I am not needed as well. Research on bystander apathy by psychologist Kyle Thomas et al. found that people's decisions to help are influenced by their level of knowledge. While the diffusion of responsibility and pluralistic ignorance are factors, the researchers found that bystanders also consider what they know about other bystanders and the situation before getting involved.
HighScope
The HighScope Perry Preschool Project was evaluated in a randomized controlled trial of 123 children (58 were randomly assigned to a treatment group that received the program and a control group of 65 children that did not receive the program). Prior to the program, the preschool and control groups were equivalent in measures of intellectual performance and demographic characteristics. After the program, the educational and life outcomes for the children receiving the program were much superior to the outcomes for the children not receiving the program. Many of the program effects were significant or approaching significance. At age 40, the participants were interviewed once more, and school, social services, and arrest records were pulled. The participants had higher-earning jobs, committed fewer crimes, and were more likely to hold a job than adults who did not attend preschool.
RAND Health Insurance Experiment
… excerpt ends here. Continue reading the full article.
