Experiment by Jacobs and Campbell

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Jacobs and Campbell experiment was designed to scientifically investigate how an arbitrary tradition in a culture is passed on across generations.

The intergenerational influencing experiment was published in 1981 by Robert C. Jacobs and Donald T. Campbell in the Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology . The reason for the experiment was the previously unexperimentally tested effect of social influences on later generations. Many well-known experiments, such as the experiment carried out by the renowned psychologist Stanley Milgram (1961) and the conformity experiment by Solomon Asch(1951) also dealt with the effect of social influences on people. However, these experiments could not show whether an influence is passed on to other people even if nothing is done to preserve it. The question arose of what happens to the generation that is no longer directly influenced and how the influence develops in the following generations and whether these are still influenced at all. According to the study by Jacobs and Campbell, it takes several generations for an arbitrary norm, once introduced into a culture, to be reduced back to normal levels.

the aim of the study

The aim of the study was to examine how an arbitrary tradition is passed on in a culture. To this end, it was observed how an established tradition changed over the generations. The prerequisite for this experiment was that the tradition was neither useful nor harmful to the population, as this could otherwise have a direct impact on the transmission of the tradition to later generations.

Experimental setup and procedure

Initially, an arbitrary tradition was actively brought about in the experimental groups. After the introduction of the tradition nothing was done to preserve the tradition. Instead, it was a matter of observing how the tradition was passed on to later generations without any external influence. Specifically, the study used the autokinetic effect , an optical illusion, to generate an arbitrary tradition. For this purpose, a point light source was installed in a completely darkened room. In addition, some chairs were set up in a row at a fixed distance.

Experimental setup of the experiment by Jacobs and Campbell on the intergenerational influence

The instructions were as follows: The test subjects were told that this was an experiment for the perception of movement. Your task is to observe how a point of light moves and then to assess how far this point has moved. In addition, the test subjects were asked to indicate how large the distance between the start and end point of the movement (measured in inches ) was. The person sitting on the far left in the room should first make their statement, then the person sitting next to them on the right, until everyone had continuously given their personal assessment. All statements should be worded out loud so that the other participants could hear them. Following the instruction, the room was darkened and the point light source activated. The test subjects should now report what they had perceived. After 30 repetitions of such a treatment, the person on the far left was led out of the room, all other persons moved up one seat and a new test person was led in. She took a seat on the last (most right) chair and the experiment started all over again.

175 students who had no knowledge of the autokinetic effect, i.e. were naive with regard to this optical illusion, were used as test subjects. These were divided into four test and two control groups. (C-1-0, C-3-0, X-2-1, X-3-2, X-4-3, X-3-1). C stands for control and X for experimental. The first number stands for the group size and the second for the number of confidences). In addition, a corresponding number of confederates was selected. After each treatment, they should report a movement of 15.5 inches (~ 40 cm), which corresponds to about five times the value normally perceived. In the experimental groups, the confederates were placed to the left so that they could make their statements in front of the naive test subjects. These were thus influenced by the values ​​given by the confederates, comparable to the results of Solomon Asch's experiments . After every 30 test runs, a confidante left the room, according to the test procedure, while uninitiated test participants came. As soon as there were no more confidants in the room, the test participant who sat on the far left left the room and another naive test person joined them. This means that - depending on the number of confederates - after a few runs, none of them took part in the experiment and only test subjects were left in the room. The information provided by the test subjects was noted in each case. Following the experiment, it was evaluated how the test subjects' statements changed in the course of the experiment.

Results

The following picture emerged in the three experimental groups X-2-1, X-3-2 and X-4-3: Influenced by the confederates, the test subjects of the first generation stated that they perceived much larger movements than the control persons. As soon as the last Confident had left the group, these exaggerated figures slowly returned to normal over several generations. This alignment took about four to five generations. Accordingly, test persons who were not exposed to any confidences also reported increased values. Only in experimental group X-3-1 did the confederate not succeed in setting a significantly higher norm, so that the adjustment to the normal measure was already done here after one or two generations.

conclusion

The experiment by Jacobs and Campbell showed that an arbitrary norm in a culture disappears on its own over generations as soon as nothing is done to maintain it. However, this alignment takes several generations, since the previous generation has a similar effect on its subsequent generation as a confidant himself and thus passes on the norm (at least in a weakened manner). It follows that the test subjects weight the opinions of other people much higher than their own (about two to four times as much), because otherwise the test subjects would not allow themselves to be influenced by confederates and previous generations. Another finding is that the longer the subjects are in the group, the less and less loyal they are to the ancient culture.

See also

Individual evidence

  1. ^ Charlier, Siegfried (2001): Psychology, Sociology and Pedagogy for Nursing Professions. Stuttgart: Georg Thieme Verlag. P. 38 ff.
  2. ↑ Frindte, Wolfgang (2001): Introduction to Communication Psychology. Weinheim and Basel: Beltz Verlag. P. 72 ff.
  3. ↑ Jacobs, Robert C. and Campbell, Donald T. (1961): The perpetuation of an arbitrary tradition through several generations of a laboratory microculture. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. 62, No. 3, p. 649.
  4. ↑ Jacobs, Robert C. and Campbell, Donald T. (1961): The perpetuation of an arbitrary tradition through several generations of a laboratory microculture. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. 62, No. 3, pp. 649f.
  5. ↑ Buunk, Bram P. (2003): Affiliation, Interpersonal Attraction, and Close Relationship. In: Stroebe, Wolfgang / Jonas, Klaus / Hewstone, Miles R., 2003, social psychology. An introduction, 4th edition, Berlin: Springer Verlag, pp. 435f.
  6. ↑ Jacobs, Robert C. and Campbell, Donald T. (1961): The perpetuation of an arbitrary tradition through several generations of a laboratory microculture. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. 62, No. 3, p. 649
  7. ↑ Jacobs, Robert C. and Campbell, Donald T. (1961): The perpetuation of an arbitrary tradition through several generations of a laboratory microculture. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. 62, No. 3, p. 650
  8. ↑ Jacobs, Robert C. and Campbell, Donald T. (1961): The perpetuation of an arbitrary tradition through several generations of a laboratory microculture. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. 62, No. 3, p. 650
  9. ↑ Jacobs, Robert C. and Campbell, Donald T. (1961): The perpetuation of an arbitrary tradition through several generations of a laboratory microculture. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. 62, No. 3, pp. 650f.
  10. ↑ Jacobs, Robert C. and Campbell, Donald T. (1961): The perpetuation of an arbitrary tradition through several generations of a laboratory microculture. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. 62, No. 3, p. 651
  11. ↑ Jacobs, Robert C. and Campbell, Donald T. (1961): The perpetuation of an arbitrary tradition through several generations of a laboratory microculture. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. 62, No. 3, pp. 651f.
  12. ↑ Jacobs, Robert C. and Campbell, Donald T. (1961): The perpetuation of an arbitrary tradition through several generations of a laboratory microculture. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. 62, No. 3, p. 655 f.
  13. ↑ Jacobs, Robert C. and Campbell, Donald T. (1961): The perpetuation of an arbitrary tradition through several generations of a laboratory microculture. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. 62, No. 3, p. 657.

further reading

  • Asch, Salomon E. (1956): Studies of independence and conformity: A minority of one against an unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs, Vol. 9, No. 416.
  • Avermeat, Eddy van (2002): Social Influence in Small Groups. In: Stroebe, Wolfgang / Jonas, Klaus / Hewstone, Miles R., 2002, social psychology. An introduction, 4th edition, Berlin: Springer Verlag, pp. 476–495.
  • Buunk, Bram P. (2003): Affiliation, Interpersonal Attraction, and Close Relationship. In: Stroebe, Wolfgang / Jonas, Klaus / Hewstone, Miles R., 2003, social psychology. An introduction, 4th edition, Berlin: Springer Verlag, pp. 415–450.
  • Charlier, Siegfried (2001): Psychology, Sociology and Pedagogy for Nursing Professions. Stuttgart: Georg Thieme Verlag.
  • Frindte, Wolfgang (2001): Introduction to Communication Psychology. Weinheim and Basel: Beltz Verlag.
  • Jacobs, Robert C. and Campbell, Donald T. (1961): The perpetuation of an arbitrary tradition through several generations of a laboratory microculture. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. 62, No. 3, pp. 640-658.
  • Milgram, Stanley (1974): Obedience to authority. New York: Harper & Row.
  • Myers, David G. (2004): Psychology. Heidelberg: Springer Verlag, pp. 622-635.
  • Stangor, Charles (2004): Social Groups in Action and Interaction. New York: Psychology Press, pp. 111-133.