Experiments With People

Why do we behave the way we do? Social psychology offers us a mirror to reflect on the surprising and often hidden forces that shape our choices.

1. We misjudge the reasons behind our actions.

People are less aware of their emotions and inner motivations than they think. Introspection often leads to flawed conclusions about their behavior. For instance, a study by Nisbett and Bellows showed that when participants rated the likability of a job applicant, they incorrectly cited irrelevant information, like a car accident, as influencing their decision.

This is further compounded by the unreliability of memory itself. A 1993 study illustrated that participants inaccurately recalled their experiences of menstrual pain based on societal beliefs rather than their actual notes. This demonstrates how current opinions taint how people remember past events.

Our inability to correctly self-assess can also exacerbate misunderstandings. When we think we know why we acted a certain way, we're more likely to defend those reasons, even when they're unsupported or wrong.

Examples

• The car accident detail inaccurately affected how participants justified their assessments of Jill.
• Women in a study recalled higher pain levels during menstruation than they had originally reported.
• People often incorrectly attribute arguments to stress or external circumstances.

2. Sacrifice increases perceived value.

Humans value things they’ve worked hard for, often beyond their actual worth. A study showed that participants, after a humiliating initiation process, rated an intentionally boring discussion as more engaging, likely to justify the embarrassment they had endured.

This phenomenon also explains why people continue investing in failing projects. Governments and corporations often refuse to abandon initiatives, believing prior investments demand further commitment, despite poor outcomes.

Additionally, choices are swayed by presentation. The framing of information, such as positively or negatively worded statements, can significantly influence decisions, even when the content remains the same.

Examples

• Participants rated the dull group discussion as worthwhile after enduring an embarrassing initiation.
• A government overspent on failing dam construction due to prior investments.
• 67% preferred a mouthwash with positive descriptions compared to 47% swayed by negative ones.

3. Situations often override personality.

Context often dictates behavior more than character traits. In one study, theology students stopped to help a person in need only when they were not in a hurry, regardless of their religious beliefs.

People’s actions are also influenced by how they judge themselves versus others. They tend to excuse their own failings (citing circumstances like stress) while assigning shortcomings in others to character flaws, as shown in a 1967 study by Jones and Harris.

Sometimes, situations even require counterintuitive responses. A 1996 experiment found that people falling asleep to loud music did so faster when they intentionally tried to stay awake, demonstrating how external pressures influence surprising outcomes.

Examples

• Only 10% of theology students stopped to help when rushing, compared to 63% who weren’t in a hurry.
• Individuals excuse their behavior due to stress but label others as forgetful or uncaring.
• Listening to loud music with the intent to stay awake helped people fall asleep.

4. People accept information at face value first.

When encountering unfamiliar situations, people initially accept what they see or hear without question. A study had participants read trial-related false statements. Those distracted with arithmetic didn’t have time to evaluate the falsehoods, resulting in harsher prison sentences.

Moreover, people often base perceptions on emotional responses. For instance, participants who previously interacted closely with others inaccurately believed they had a telepathic connection simply because of positive feelings created during practice sessions.

This cognitive default to accept impressions before scrutiny means misinformation and biases thrive unless actively challenged by focused reasoning.

Examples

• Distracted participants rated jail sentences 11 years longer due to unverified misconceptions.
• Misleading initial impressions were solidified when participants delayed questioning false statements.
• “Good vibes” from practice led participants to perceive non-existent telepathic connections.

5. Self-deception helps manage reality.

People often trick themselves into avoiding unpleasant truths. A 1980 study revealed that participants who feared illness actively persuaded themselves they were healthy by overeating, suppressing the possibility they might be sick.

Gender stereotypes offer another coping mechanism for societal structures. People infer personalities based on societal roles, as shown in a 1990 study where participants described alien species with social roles in stereotypical terms, such as sensitive caregivers or assertive workers.

These self-deceptions simplify complex realities but can reinforce harmful biases and prevent individuals from addressing real issues.

Examples

• Sick individuals overate when appetite denial signified serious illness.
• Participants labeled “child-raising aliens” as more sensitive than their industrial peers.
• People commonly misattribute observed traits to social stereotypes instead of questioning their origins.

6. Group behavior alters individual actions.

The groups we belong to shape perceptions and behaviors. A 1954 study on a football game revealed Princeton and Dartmouth students overwhelmingly blamed the opposing team for fouls, indicating how group loyalty distorts reality.

Group norms also pressure individuals to conform. In a classic experiment, actors gave wrong answers to easy questions. Real participants went along with the group’s incorrect answers 31–37% of the time, even when they knew the right one.

Interestingly, a single dissenting voice breaks this conformity. When one actor in the same study gave a correct response, alignment to group norms dropped below 10%.

Examples

• Princeton fans blamed Dartmouth players for fouls, and Dartmouth fans did the opposite.
• Participants in groups conformed to incorrect answers about matching cards over 30% of the time.
• Conformity diminished when even one actor gave correct answers.

7. Groups can drive harmful behavior.

Being part of a group shifts responsibility and encourages misconduct. In one experiment, children trick-or-treating alone adhered to rules, but in anonymous groups, they broke them more than 50% of the time.

When responsibilities are diffused, people are less likely to help. An experiment recorded participants as less likely to stop a seizure when they assumed others were nearby.

Further, ostracization from groups has devastating outcomes. The Columbine shootings highlighted how exclusion led young men to channel rejection into violence, underlining the dangers of social isolation.

Examples

• 57% of trick-or-treating groups disobeyed a take-one rule when anonymous.
• Participants were less likely to assist a seizure victim when others were perceived to be nearby.
• The Columbine shooters expressed their alienation through violent acts after social exclusion.

8. Subconscious factors drive attraction and prejudice.

Attraction arises simply from exposure. A woman in a study preferred her mirrored image while her partner favored the natural view due to differing familiarity levels.

Similarly, preconceived notions influence how people treat others. If you assume someone is charming, you act warmly toward them, reinforcing their positive traits. Conversely, negative expectations perpetuate biases.

Prejudices, even unconscious ones, heavily guide associations. In one study, participants linked negative traits more readily to black faces than white faces, without consciously feeling racist.

Examples

• Familiarity with one’s reflection created a preference for the mirrored picture.
• Believing in someone’s charm resulted in positive interactions confirming the belief.
• Participants associated black faces faster with negative descriptors, revealing unconscious bias.

9. Altruism and love reveal our better nature.

Altruistic acts stem from genuine care. A study showed participants willingly helped a struggling woman, even if others had already volunteered.

Love shows itself through self-expansion. When people see loved ones as extensions of themselves, they internalize their spouse’s experiences. Participants in one study hesitated when rejecting statements true for their partners but not true for themselves.

These examples remind us that, despite challenges, human actions are also motivated by empathy, loyalty, and shared joy.

Examples

• 60% of participants volunteered to help Katie despite no obligation.
• Love blurred the line between individuals’ identities in sorting tasks.
• Empathy, not external pressure, drove participants to help someone in need.

Takeaways

1. Evaluate your decisions critically by questioning emotional justifications and gut reactions.
2. Foster inclusion and dissenting perspectives in groups to reduce harmful conformity.
3. Seek meaningful connections and practice empathy to cultivate acts of altruism in everyday life.