experimental research example

So what exactly makes something an experimental research example versus just, you know, someone messing around in a lab coat? The magic sauce is all about control and manipulation. In a proper experimental setup, researchers play puppet master with variables—changing one thing (the independent variable) to see how it affects another thing (the dependent variable), all while keeping everything else locked down tighter than Fort Knox. This ain't correlational research where you're just watching stuff happen; this is where you grab the steering wheel and see where the car goes. The beauty of a solid experimental research example is that it can actually prove cause and effect, not just suggest it might be hanging around somewhere in the neighborhood.

Let's kick things off with a real heavyweight in the experimental research example hall of fame: Stanley Milgram's obedience experiments from the 1960s. Picture this—you're told you're participating in a study about memory and learning. You're the "teacher," and there's a "learner" in another room who keeps getting questions wrong. Every time they mess up, you're supposed to zap them with an electric shock that gets stronger each time. Except here's the kicker—the learner is actually an actor, and those screams you hear? Totally fake. Milgram was really testing how far ordinary people would go when told to hurt someone by an authority figure. The results were, well, kinda terrifying—about 65% of participants were willing to administer what they thought were potentially lethal shocks just because some guy in a lab coat said "please continue." Talk about a powerful experimental research example that still gives psychology students nightmares!

Now we're talking about an experimental research example that literally saved millions of lives. Back in the 1950s, Jonas Salk developed a polio vaccine, but before he could unleash it on the world, he needed proof it actually worked. Enter the mother of all clinical trials—over 1.8 million children participated in what became known as the "polio pioneers" study. Half got the real vaccine, half got a placebo (basically salt water), and nobody knew who got what until the results were in. This double-blind, randomized controlled trial is like the gold standard of experimental research example methodology. The results? The vaccine was about 80-90% effective against paralytic polio. Schools stopped closing every summer, kids stopped wearing leg braces, and parents everywhere breathed a massive sigh of relief. Now that's what we call making a difference!

Ever wonder why people sometimes act against their own best interests? The ultimatum game is a brilliant experimental research example that shows how emotions can trump pure logic every time. Here's how it works: Player A gets $10 and has to offer some portion to Player B. If Player B accepts, they both keep their money. If Player B rejects, neither gets anything. According to classical economics, Player B should accept any offer—even a penny—because something's better than nothing. But in reality? People regularly reject unfair offers, even if it means walking away with zero. This experimental research example revealed that fairness and spite can override rational self-interest faster than you can say "irrational behavior." It's like when you'd rather throw away leftover pizza than give it to someone who dissed you earlier—pure spite, zero logic!

What happens when you take nearly 12,000 students and randomly assign them to different class sizes to see if smaller really is better? You get one of the most influential experimental research example studies in education history! The Tennessee Student/Teacher Achievement Ratio (STAR) project in the 1980s was a massive undertaking that tracked kids from kindergarten through third grade. Some got small classes (13-17 students), others got regular-sized ones (22-25 students). The results? Students in smaller classes consistently outperformed their peers, especially in reading and math. But here's the real kicker—the benefits lasted even after kids went back to regular-sized classes in fourth grade. This experimental research example provided hard evidence that class size matters, influencing education policy for decades. Who knew that sometimes the best way to solve a debate is to just, you know, actually test it?

Remember that theory about how fixing broken windows can reduce crime? Well, researchers actually put it to the test in a clever experimental research example that would make any social scientist proud. In one study, researchers set up scenarios where they'd leave a car parked in different neighborhoods—one with a broken window, one pristine. The car with the broken window got vandalized way faster, supporting the idea that visible disorder invites more disorder. But wait, there's more! In another version, researchers actually manipulated environments to see if cleaning up graffiti and fixing broken things would reduce littering and petty crime. The results were pretty compelling—maintained environments did see less antisocial behavior. This experimental research example showed that sometimes the simplest interventions can have surprisingly powerful effects on human behavior. It's like your mom always said: "Clean up your room, and you'll feel better about life!" Turns out she was onto something!

Okay, let's get real for a second—sometimes experimental research example studies aren't just about advancing human knowledge; sometimes they're about selling more soda. Enter the famous Pepsi Challenge of the 1970s and 80s. In this marketing masterpiece, participants were given two unmarked cups—one with Coke, one with Pepsi—and asked to pick their favorite. Time and time again, Pepsi won in these blind taste tests. But here's where it gets interesting: when people knew which brand they were drinking, Coke often won. This experimental research example revealed something crucial about consumer behavior—brand loyalty and perception can override actual taste preferences. It's like when you think your grandma's cookies are the best in the world, even though objectively they might be a little burnt around the edges. The Pepsi Challenge became a classic case study in how experimental design can uncover hidden truths about human decision-making.

You've probably heard of the original marshmallow test—kids who could delay gratification by waiting to eat a marshmallow tended to have better life outcomes later. But here's a fascinating twist on this classic experimental research example: recent studies have shown that the ability to wait isn't just about self-control; it's also about trust and environment. In one variation, researchers manipulated whether kids could trust the adult experimenter before the marshmallow test. Kids who experienced broken promises waited significantly less time than those who experienced reliable adults. This updated experimental research example suggests that what looks like poor self-control might actually be rational decision-making based on past experiences. It's like when you stop believing someone will actually show up on time after they've been late three times in a row—sometimes "impulsivity" is just smart adaptation!

Now here's an experimental research example that really stirred the pot—literally! In 2014, researchers manipulated the news feeds of nearly 700,000 Facebook users to see if emotional content was contagious. Some users saw more positive posts, others saw more negative ones. The results? People who saw more positive content posted more positive content themselves, and vice versa. But oh boy, did this study cause an uproar! Critics argued it was unethical to manipulate people's emotions without their explicit consent. This experimental research example became a landmark case in research ethics, sparking debates about what's acceptable in the digital age. It's like when your friend tries to cheer you up by only showing you happy memes, but you later find out they were deliberately filtering your feed—feels a bit icky, right? The study raised important questions about the boundaries of experimental research in our increasingly connected world.

Feeling inspired to create your own experimental research example? Here's the lowdown on getting started. First, identify your variables—what are you changing, and what are you measuring? Second, randomize your participants if possible; this helps ensure your groups are comparable. Third, control those confounding variables like your life depends on it! Fourth, consider whether you need a control group (spoiler: you probably do). And finally, don't forget to check out resources like Onomy Science for more guidance. If you're diving into the Research category, you'll find tons of helpful tips. And if you're curious about other approaches, the Correlational Research Psychology Findings article breaks down when you might want to use different methods. Remember, a good experimental research example isn't about being fancy—it's about answering your question as clearly and honestly as possible!

References

• https://www.apa.org/research/responsible/experimental-design
• https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-018-0314-6
• https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.167.3914.19
• https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1323243111