Social Psychology: Revisiting the

Classic Studies 2nd Edition Joanne R.

Smith (Editor)
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/social-psychology-revisiting-the-classic-studies-2nd-e
dition-joanne-r-smith-editor/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Women s Studies The Basics 2nd Edition Bonnie G Smith

https://textbookfull.com/product/women-s-studies-the-basics-2nd-
edition-bonnie-g-smith/

Computational Social Psychology 1st Edition Robin R.

Vallacher

https://textbookfull.com/product/computational-social-
psychology-1st-edition-robin-r-vallacher/

Social Psychology 2nd Edition Robbie Sutton

https://textbookfull.com/product/social-psychology-2nd-edition-
robbie-sutton/

The Drama of Social Life Essays in Post Modern Social

Psychology 1st Edition T. R. Young

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-drama-of-social-life-essays-
in-post-modern-social-psychology-1st-edition-t-r-young/
Advanced Social Psychology 2nd Edition Eli J. Finkel

https://textbookfull.com/product/advanced-social-psychology-2nd-
edition-eli-j-finkel/

Social Psychology: The Science of Everyday Life 2nd

Edition Jeff Greenberg

https://textbookfull.com/product/social-psychology-the-science-
of-everyday-life-2nd-edition-jeff-greenberg/

Finding Purple America: The South and the Future of

American Cultural Studies (The New Southern Studies
Ser.) 2nd Edition Smith

https://textbookfull.com/product/finding-purple-america-the-
south-and-the-future-of-american-cultural-studies-the-new-
southern-studies-ser-2nd-edition-smith/

DESIGN OF OBSERVATIONAL STUDIES. 2nd Edition Paul R.

Rosenbaum

https://textbookfull.com/product/design-of-observational-
studies-2nd-edition-paul-r-rosenbaum/

Aesthetics The Classic Readings 2nd Edition David E.

Cooper

https://textbookfull.com/product/aesthetics-the-classic-
readings-2nd-edition-david-e-cooper/
Social Psychology
Psychology: Revisiting the
Classic Studies

Series Editors:

S. Alexander Haslam1, Alan M. Slater2 and Joanne R. Smith2

1School of Psychology, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia

2School of Psychology, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK

Psychology: Revisiting the Classic Studies is a new series of texts

aimed at students and general readers who are interested in
understanding issues raised by key studies in psychology. Volumes
centre on 12–15 studies, with each chapter providing a detailed
account of a particular classic study and its empirical and theoretical
impact. Chapters also discuss the important ways in which thinking
and research has advanced in the years since the study was
conducted. They are written by researchers at the cutting edge of
these developments and, as a result, these texts serve as an
excellent resource for instructors and students looking to explore
different perspectives on core material that defines the field of
psychology as we know it today.

Also available:

Brain and Behaviour: Revisiting the Classic Studies Bryan Kolb and
Ian Wishaw

Cognitive Psychology: Revisiting the Classic Studies Michael W.

Eysenck and David Groome Developmental Psychology: Revisiting
the Classic Studies Alan M. Slater and Paul C. Quinn
Social Psychology

Revisiting the Classic Studies

Psychology: Revisiting the Classic

Studies

2nd Edition

Edited by

Joanne R. Smith
& S. Alexander Haslam
SAGE Publications Ltd

1 Oliver’s Yard
55 City Road

London EC1Y 1SP

SAGE Publications Inc.
2455 Teller Road
Thousand Oaks, California 91320

SAGE Publications India Pvt Ltd

B 1/I 1 Mohan Cooperative Industrial Area Mathura Road

New Delhi 110 044

SAGE Publications Asia-Pacific Pte Ltd

3 Church Street
#10-04 Samsung Hub

Singapore 049483

Introduction and Editorial Arrangement © S. Alexander Haslam and

Joanne R. Smith 2017
Chapter 1 © Steven J. Karau and Kipling D. Williams 2017
Chapter 2 © Joanne R. Smith and Deborah J. Terry 2017
Chapter 3 © Joel Cooper 2017
Chapter 4 © Dominic Abrams and John M. Levine 2017
Chapter 5 © Jolanda Jetten and Matthew J. Hornsey 2017
Chapter 6 © Robin Martin and Miles Hewstone 2017
Chapter 7 © Stephen Reicher and S. Alexander Haslam 2017
Chapter 8 © S. Alexander Haslam and Stephen Reicher 2017
Chapter 9 © Michael J. Platow and John A. Hunter 2017
Chapter 10 © Russell Spears and Sabine Otten 2017
Chapter 11 © Dominic J. Packer and Nick D. Ungson 2017
Chapter 12 © Mark Levine 2017
Chapter 13 © Jack Dovidio 2017
Chapter 14 © Craig McGarty 2017
Chapter 15 © Toni Schmader and Chad Forbes 2017
First published 2017
First edition published 2013
 Reprinted 2013, 2014, 2015 (twice), 2016

Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or private
study, or criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright,
Designs and Patents Act, 1988, this publication may be reproduced,
stored or transmitted in any form, or by any means, only with the
prior permission in writing of the publishers, or in the case of
reprographic reproduction, in accordance with the terms of licences
issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency. Enquiries concerning
reproduction outside those terms should be sent to the publishers.
Library of Congress Control Number: 2016962465

British Library Cataloguing in Publication data A catalogue record for this

book is available from the British Library ISBN 978-1-4739-7865-2

ISBN 978-1-4739-7866-9 (pbk)

Editor: Luke Block

Editorial assistant: Lucy Dang

Production editor: Imogen Roome

Marketing manager: Lucia Sweet

Cover design: Wendy Scott

Typeset by: C&M Digitals (P) Ltd, Chennai, India Printed in the UK
If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the
shoulders of giants.

Isaac Newton in a letter to his scientific rival, Robert Hooke, 5

February 1676
Contents
Preface to the Second Edition
Biographies of Contributors
An Introduction to Classic Studies in Social Psychology
1 Social Facilitation and Social Loafing: Revisiting Triplett’s
competition studies
2 Attitudes and Behaviour: Revisiting LaPiere’s hospitality study
3 Cognitive Dissonance: Revisiting Festinger’s End of the World
study
4 Norm Formation: Revisiting Sherif’s autokinetic illusion study
5 Conformity: Revisiting Asch’s line-judgment studies
6 Minority Influence: Revisiting Moscovici’s blue-green
afterimage studies
7 Obedience: Revisiting Milgram’s shock experiments
8 Tyranny: Revisiting Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment
9 Intergroup Relations and Conflict: Revisiting Sherif’s Boys’
Camp studies
10 Discrimination: Revisiting Tajfel’s minimal group studies
11 Group Decision-Making: Revisiting Janis’ groupthink studies
12 Helping in Emergencies: Revisiting Latané and Darley’s
bystander studies
13 Promoting Positive Intergroup Relations: Revisiting Aronson
et al.’s jigsaw classroom
14 Stereotype Formation: Revisiting Hamilton and Gifford’s
illusory correlation studies
15 Stereotypes and Performance: Revisiting Steele and
Aronson’s stereotype threat experiments
Author index
Subject index
Preface to the Second Edition

In 2012 when we published the first edition of Social Psychology:

Revisiting the Classic Studies, it never occurred to us to write a
preface, largely because we were happy for the book to speak for
itself. We also had no thought of producing a second edition –
especially not so soon after the first. Yet the success of the first
edition far surpassed our expectations (and those of our publisher).
So, although only five years have passed since the first edition was
published, it is clear that there is demand for the volume to be
updated. Not least, this is because there have been seismic shifts in
the field of social psychology during this period that make the
original ambition of the volume – and of the Revisiting Psychology
series more broadly – even more relevant today. In particular, while
the classic studies are no more ‘classic’ now than they were five
years ago, the lessons to be learned from re-engaging with them
seem to be much more pertinent as the discipline negotiates its way
through the so-called ‘replication crisis’ and agonizes about how to
define a pathway forward. In this context, having a clear sense of
where we have come from seems imperative for understanding
where we might want to go, and how we might get there.

Although we touch on some of the reasons for editing a volume on

classic studies in social psychology in the introductory chapter, we
can include a somewhat fuller account here. At the University of
Exeter, a first-year module on ‘Classic Studies in Psychology’ has
been taught since 2005. The module was developed by Alex and
Alan Slater (our series co-editor) with a number of objectives in
mind. First, we wanted to give students (not all of whom would go
on to graduate with a degree in psychology) exposure to studies that
are commonly seen as the building blocks of the discipline and about
which every student should be expected to have some knowledge.
Second, we knew that many students had already had some
exposure to these studies in school, but we were keen for them to
‘unlearn’ some of the myths about those studies – and hence about
social psychology – that had previously been drilled into them.
Groups are not inherently bad; people do not always conform;
resistance is not necessarily futile. Third, we wanted to give students
not only a sense of how knowledge around particular studies and
topics had evolved over time, but also insight into the process
through which this had occurred. How does one set about critiquing
established knowledge, and how does scientific understanding
thereby progress (or not)? As the replication crisis has reaffirmed,
these questions are among the most important in our discipline, and
a course that gives students insights into how to answer them struck
us as filling an important gap in the undergraduate curriculum.

In late 2007, Joanne joined the department at Exeter and took over
delivery of the Classic Studies course. It was during an early
handover meeting that we first mooted the idea of writing a book
that would reflect the goals of the course and would satisfy the
demands of students for a textbook to accompany it. It took a
further five years for us to finally publish the first edition. In the
intervening years we discussed various potential formats for the
book. Initially we toyed with the idea of writing all the chapters
ourselves, before arriving at the much more satisfactory conclusion
that it would be far better to ask world-leading researchers to author
chapters in which they revisited a classic study into which their own
research had given them particular insight. To give the book
coherence, however, we agreed that all chapters should have a
common format: first describing the classic study itself, then
considering its impact, before going on to explain how the field has
advanced in the time since the study was conducted.

As we finessed these ideas more, it also quickly became clear that a

single volume of classic studies in psychology would not do justice to
the exciting and diverse nature of the discipline and so we
developed the idea of a book series. In this, expert editors within a
sub-discipline of psychology would identify classic studies in their
field and commission internationally renowned researchers to revisit
and update those classic studies. From the outset SAGE were as
enthusiastic about the project as we were. In 2012, they published
titles on Social Psychology and Developmental Psychology (edited by
Alan Slater and Paul Quinn). Since then, volumes on classic studies
in Cognitive Psychology (edited by Michael Eysenck and David
Groome, 2015) and Brain and Behaviour (edited by Bryan Kolb and
Ian Wishaw, 2016) have been published. And, with the series going
from strength to strength, new titles on Personality and Individual
Differences and Clinical Psychology are also now in the pipeline.
More, we hope, will follow.

So why have we decided to revisit our original volume? One reason

is simply to address some omissions from the first edition. For
reasons of brevity, we were only able to include 12 classic studies in
the first edition. Naturally, this meant that other worthy studies were
excluded. In this second edition, we have been able to include a
further three studies that clearly meet the criteria for a classic study,
criteria that we outline in the introductory chapter. Their inclusion
allows us to reflect more accurately the wide array of methods in
social psychology, to highlight the broad impact of social psychology
in the world at large, and to showcase some more ‘modern classics’.

Another reason relates to the tectonic shifts within the field of

psychology that have taken place in the last few years. As we noted
above, these have seen unprecedented debate and controversy
regarding the reproducibility of the discipline’s findings, and social
psychology in particular has come under heavy fire. It is beyond the
scope of this Preface to discuss these issues in depth, but needless
to say, there is now greater interest in revisiting apparently canonical
findings in social psychology to consider not only how reliable they
are, but also how valid. As suggested above, we feel that the goals
of this volume – and indeed of the series as a whole – are
particularly relevant to this endeavour in helping readers explore
new ways of thinking about this established corpus while also
modelling the process of critical thinking that is central to scientific
advance. Importantly, this is a matter not just of engaging with
empirical detail but also of developing sound theory. It is our belief
that, even more than the first edition, this second edition showcases
the capacity for social psychology to be both self-reflective and self-
correcting – and that by showing how we can learn important
lessons from the past it helps dispel some of the gloomier forecasts
for our future.

Since publishing the first edition, we have also experienced some

personal tectonic shifts. One of us has moved continents, while the
other has produced a first edition of a different kind. When we
worked on the first edition, we had offices directly opposite each
other and so could edit chapters at the same time, shouting our
ideas, thoughts, and comments across the hallway. For the second
edition, we found ourselves on opposite sides of the world,
supplementing occasional face-to-face visits in Brisbane and Exeter
with emails and cloud-based computing services. However, despite
this spatial dislocation, we can honestly say that we have had just as
much fun putting together this second edition as we had in working
on the first.

In expressing gratitude to those who made this volume possible, it is

appropriate to start by thanking the chapter authors whose excellent
contributions allowed our aspirations for the book to be
comprehensively exceeded. We are extremely grateful too to the
team at SAGE who put their faith in the initial project and who have
motivated us to move it forward. Thanks especially to Michael
Carmichael for his original excitement and unstinting support, and
for putting up with our (at times) unreasonable demands to tweak
the artwork for the cover just one more time. Thanks also to Luke
Block for encouraging us to revisit Revisiting and for his ongoing
encouragement, commitment and confidence. We are extremely
appreciative too of the high-quality advice and support that our
many colleagues at the Universities of Exeter and Queensland (and
many other places besides) have given us along the way. And,
finally, thanks – and praise – to Colin and Cath for sustaining us
through the bad times and the good, and for ensuring that the latter
have been pronounced and plentiful.

Joanne Smith and Alex Haslam

The University of Exeter

The University of Queensland

October 2016
Biographies of Contributors

Dominic Abrams
is Professor of Social Psychology and Director of the Centre for
the Study of Group Processes at the University of Kent. His
research interests are in the areas of group processes and social
inclusion, with particular interests in macrosocial intergroup
relations, intergroup contact and social cohesion, ageism,
responses to deviance and innovation, the development of
prejudice and its implications for intragroup relationships. As
well as publishing widely in social and developmental
psychology, he is the co-editor of Group Processes and
Intergroup Relations. He is past President of the Society for the
Psychological Study of Social Issues and current Vice President
(Social Sciences) of the British Academy.
Joel Cooper
is Professor of Psychology at Princeton University. His research
has focused on attitude formation and change, with special
emphasis on cognitive dissonance. He is the author of the 2007
book Cognitive Dissonance: 50 years of a classic theory, and co-
author of The Science of Attitudes (2016). He is also co-editor
of the Sage Handbook of Social Psychology, and co-author of
the book Gender and Computers. His additional research
interests are in jury decision making and the use of technology.
Cooper is former editor-in-chief of the Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology.
John F. (Jack) Dovidio
is Carl Iver Hovland Professor of Psychology, as well as Dean of
Academic Affairs of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, at Yale
University. He has previously served as editor of the Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology – Interpersonal Relations and
Group Processes and of Personality and Social Psychology
 Bulletin, and co-editor of Social Issues and Policy Review. His
research interests are in stereotyping, prejudice, and
discrimination; social power and nonverbal communication; and
altruism and helping.
Chad Forbes
is an Assistant Professor in psychological and brain sciences at
the University of Delaware. With a background ranging from
molecular biology to complex social processes, Dr Forbes has
received multiple grants from the National Science Foundation
to examine how and why negative stereotypes and
neurobiomarkers associated with stress prompt minorities and
women to leave academic and STEM fields at disproportionate
rates compared to non-stigmatized individuals. He was recently
elected as a Fellow in the Society of Experimental Social
Psychology and recognized as a ‘Rising Star’ by the American
Psychological Association.
S. Alexander Haslam
is Professor of Social Psychology and Australian Laureate Fellow
at the University of Queensland. His research focuses on the
study of social identity in social, organizational, and clinical
contexts. He is a former editor of the European Journal of Social
Psychology, a Fellow of the Canadian Institute for Advanced
Research, and a recipient of the European Association of Social
Psychology’s Lewin Medal. In 2010 he was awarded a National
Teaching Fellowship for his work with Steve Reicher on the BBC
Prison Study.
Miles Hewstone
is Professor of Social Psychology and Fellow of New College,
Oxford University. He has published widely in social psychology,
and his current research focus is intergroup contact and conflict.
His awards include the Kurt Lewin Award for Distinguished
Research Achievement (2005), from the European Association
for Social Psychology, and the Gordon Allport Intergroup
Relations Prize (2005). He was elected a Fellow of the British
Academy (the National Academy for the Humanities and Social
Sciences) in 2002.
Matthew J. Hornsey
is a Professor of Social Psychology at the University of
Queensland. His research interests are in the areas of group
processes and intergroup relations, with particular interests in
(a) how people respond to trust-challenging messages such as
criticisms, recommendations for change, and gestures of
remorse; and (b) the dynamic and sometimes tense relationship
between individual and collective selves. He is co-editor of the
2011 book Rebels in Groups: Dissent, Deviance, Difference, and
Defiance (2011, Wiley-Blackwell).
John A. Hunter
is a Senior Lecturer at the University of Otago. His research is
concerned with the theoretical and practical ramifications of
group-based behaviour. Recent publications on these topics
include intergroup discrimination (e.g., anti-fat bias,
sectarianism, nationalism and sexism), health-related outcomes
(e.g., alcohol consumption, resilience), motivation (e.g., self-
esteem, belonging), socialization and contact experiences.
Jolanda Jetten
is Professor of Social Psychology at the University of
Queensland. Her research is concerned with social identity,
group processes and intergroup relations. She has a special
interest in marginal group membership and deviance within
groups, and recently she has examined the way identity can
protect health and well-being. She has co-edited two recent
edited volumes on these lines of work: Rebels in Groups:
Dissent, Deviance, Difference, and Defiance (2011, Wiley-
Blackwell) and The Social Cure: Identity, Health and Well-being
(2011, Psychology Press). In 2014 she received the Kurt Lewin
Award for Distinguished Research Achievement from the
European Association for Social Psychology.
Steven J. Karau
is the Gregory A. Lee Professor of Management at Southern
Illinois University, Carbondale. He conducts research on a range
of group process and organizational behaviour issues, with a
special focus on motivation within groups, time pressure and
 group performance, gender differences in leadership,
personality influences in organizational contexts, and the ethics
of managerial change initiatives. He is a frequent contributor to
a variety of top management and psychology journals.
John M. Levine
is Professor of Psychology and Senior Scientist, Learning
Research and Development Center, at the University of
Pittsburgh. His research focuses on small group processes
including newcomer innovation in work teams, reaction to
deviance and disloyalty, and the social dynamics of online
groups. He has served as editor of the Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology and Chair of the Society of Experimental
Social Psychology. Dr Levine was co-recipient of the Joseph E.
McGrath Award for Lifetime Achievement in the Study of Groups
from the Interdisciplinary Network for Group Research in 2011,
and received an Honorary Doctorate from the University of
Lausanne in 2016. He is currently an Honorary Professor of
Psychology at the University of Kent, Canterbury.
Mark Levine
is a Professor of Social Psychology at the University of Exeter.
His research focuses on the role of social identity in pro-social
and anti-social behaviour. His recent work has examined the role
of group processes in the regulation of perpetrator, victim and
bystander behaviour during aggressive and violent events. He is
co-editor of Beyond the Prejudice Problematic: Extending the
Social Psychology of Intergroup Conflict, Inequality and Social
Change (2011, Cambridge University Press).
Craig McGarty
is Professor of Psychology at the University of Western Sydney.
The focus of his research currently is on social change through
collective action based on opinion-based group memberships.
His (co-)authored and edited books include The Message of
Social Psychology (1997, Blackwell), Categorization in Social
Psychology (1999, Sage), Stereotypes as Explanations (2002,
Cambridge University Press), and Research Methods and
Statistics in Psychology (2003, Sage).
Robin Martin
is Professor of Organisational Psychology at Alliance Manchester
Business School, University of Manchester. He conducts research
in a variety of areas including majority and minority influence,
workplace leadership and workplace innovation. He has been a
consultant for many organizations, working on a range of
managerial issues but most specifically how to develop effective
leadership. He recently co-edited Minority Influence and
Innovation: Antecedents, Processes and Consequences (2010,
Psychology Press).
Sabine Otten
is Professor of Intergroup Relations and Social Integration at the
University of Groningen. She is a former associate editor of the
European Journal of Social Psychology, and co-edited
Intergroup Relations: The Role of Motivation and Emotion
(2009, Psychology Press) and Towards Inclusive Organizations:
Determinants of Successful Diversity Management at Work
(2015, Psychology Press). In her research she focuses on basic
processes underlying ingroup favouritism and group
identification, the role of social categorization in social conflicts,
and the psychological analysis of inclusion and diversity in the
workplace.
Dominic J. Packer
is Associate Professor of Psychology and Associate Dean for
Research and Graduate Programs in the College of Arts and
Sciences at Lehigh University. His research interests are in the
areas of conformity and dissent, intergroup relations, and moral
evaluation and decision-making, with particular attention to
processes that may mitigate against some groups’ more harmful
proclivities, including blind conformity to social norms,
intergroup prejudice and moralistic aggression.
Michael Platow
is a Professor of Psychology at the Australian National
University. He has published research in leading journals on the
social psychology of justice, leadership, social influence, helping,
trust, interdependence, and education. He was President of the
 Society of Australasian Social Psychologists, and an associate
editor of Social Psychology and Personality Science. His teaching
has been recognized by an Australian Commonwealth Office of
Learning and Teaching Carrick Citation, while his contributions
to research have been recognized through his election as a
Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences in Australia. His
(co-)authored and edited books include Self and Social Identity
in Educational Contexts (2017, Routledge), The New Psychology
of Leadership: Identity, Influence and Power (2011, Psychology
Press), Social Identity at Work: Developing Theory for
Organizational Practice (2003, Psychology Press), and Self and
Identity: Personal, Social and Symbolic (2002, Routledge).
Stephen Reicher
is Professor of Social Psychology at the University of St
Andrews. He is also co-author of Self and Nation (2001, Sage)
and The New Psychology of Leadership: Identity, Influence and
Power (2011, Psychology Press). In 2010 he received the British
Psychology Society’s annual award for excellence in teaching for
his work on the BBC Prison Study. He is former editor of the
British Journal of Social Psychology and a Fellow of the Royal
Society of Edinburgh.
Toni Schmader
holds the Canada Research Chair in Social Psychology at the
University of British Columbia. Her research examines the
interplay between self and social identity, particularly when
one’s social identity is targeted by negative stereotypes. In
2013, she was the recipient of the Killam Faculty Research Prize.
She has served as an associate editor at the Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology and Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, and on the executive committees of both
the Society for Personality and Social Psychology and the
Society of Experimental Social Psychology, where she is also an
elected Fellow.
Joanne R. Smith
is an Associate Professor in Social Psychology at the University
of Exeter. Her research interests are in the areas of social
 influence, norms, behaviour change, and social identity. Her
most recent research focuses on the way in which normative
messages are used in campaigns, why campaigns often fail, and
how we can better harness the power of norms to change
behaviour. She is a Senior Fellow of the Higher Education
Academy.
Russell Spears
is a Professor of Psychology recently appointed to an endowed
chair at the University of Groningen. His research focuses on
social identity and intergroup relations, social stereotyping,
prejudice and discrimination, resistance and social action, and
the role of intergroup emotions in these processes. He has also
researched the role of social identity, influence and power in the
new communications technologies. A Fellow of the Society for
Personality and Social Psychology, he is a former editor of the
British Journal of Social Psychology and the European Journal of
Social Psychology.
Deborah J. Terry
was appointed Curtin University’s Vice-Chancellor in February
2014 and is the immediate past President of the Academy of
Social Sciences in Australia (ASSA) and member of the Board of
Universities Australia. She is also past Chair of the Australian
Council of Learned Academies and the Australian Research
Council’s College of Experts in the Social, Behavioural and
Economic Sciences. Professor Terry completed her PhD in Social
Psychology at the Australian National University. She had a
distinguished career at the University of Queensland, initially as
an internationally recognized scholar in psychology, before
progressing through a number of senior leadership roles,
including Senior Deputy Vice-Chancellor. She is a Fellow of the
Academy of Social Sciences in Australia and was made an
Officer in the General Division (AO) in June 2015 for
distinguished service to education in the tertiary sector.
Nick D. Ungson
is a doctoral student in Social Psychology at Lehigh University.
His research focuses on the role of social identity in intragroup
 and intergroup evaluation – for example, he examines how
individuals react, both behaviourally and attitudinally, to disloyal
group members. He also examines situational factors that
influence intergroup cooperation. His other research interests
include the social cognitive processes moderating harsh blame
reactions in response to moral transgressions.
Kipling D. Williams
is a Professor of Psychological Sciences at Purdue University. His
research interests are in the areas of group processes and social
influence, with particular interests in ostracism, social loafing
and social compensation, internet research, stealing thunder,
and psychology and law. A frequent contributor to a variety of
top social psychology journals, he is author of Ostracism: The
Power of Silence (2001, Guilford Press), and co-editor of The
Social Outcast (2005, Psychology Press), The Oxford Handbook
of Social Influence (2016, Oxford University Press), and
Ostracism, Exclusion, and Rejection (2016, Psychology Press ).
He is also editor of the journal Social Influence.
An Introduction to Classic
Studies in Social Psychology

S. Alexander Haslam Joanne R. Smith Social

psychology emerged as a discipline in the late
nineteenth century centred on a core concern
to understand the psychological underpinnings
of society and social life. What is it that makes
people feel love or hate, display pride or
prejudice, or choose to fight or flee? And what
determines who they do these things with,
and how they engage and interact with other
people more generally? Answering such
questions has involved thousands of
researchers conducting many hundreds of
thousands of studies. Yet which of these are
worthy of being identified as true ‘classics’? As
it turns out, this is both an easy and a difficult
question to answer: easy, because there is a
reasonable amount of consensus among social
psychologists as to what the classic studies
are, but difficult, because in creating this
volume we wanted to be extremely choosy.
Indeed, although the second edition of this
book contains three more studies than the
first edition, it still restricts its attention to
just 15 studies. In the chapters that follow,
quite a few more studies are discussed –
either as elaborations or as extensions of the
focal studies – but nevertheless those that are
included constitute a highly selective sample.
Unsurprisingly, then, the studies that are examined in the chapters
that follow are very well-known within social psychology. They are
described in almost every introductory textbook (and in many
advanced texts as well) and they serve as common points of
reference for researchers, teachers and students alike. As Christian
Jarrett, author of The Rough Guide to Psychology, has noted, ‘while
other sciences have their cardinal theories … psychology’s
foundations are built not of theory, but with the rock of classic
experiments’ (2008: 756). A key reason for this is that the studies
speak powerfully to the goals of social psychology as a discipline
that is concerned with providing a scientific analysis of the
relationship between mind and society (Asch, 1952; McDougall,
1910; Turner and Oakes, 1997). As a result, they have played an
important role in setting the research agenda for the field as it has
progressed over time.

However, one quality that makes these studies genuine classics is

that their details are well-known not just inside but also outside
social psychology –not only by researchers in other academic
disciplines (e.g., sociology, politics, economics, history), but also by
journalists, social commentators, policy makers and other interested
members of the general public. In this respect, a central feature of
the studies is their capacity to captivate those who read about them.
Indeed, this has meant that as well as arousing intellectual curiosity
they have also impacted upon our culture in a diverse array of forms
– including music, art, theatre and film. These studies, then, do not
just belong to social psychology. Rather, they have widespread
currency in society (or, at least, western society) and have played an
important role in shaping everyday understandings of the behaviour
within it. In Serge Moscovici’s (1984) terms, they have become
central to people’s social representations of social psychology in the
sense that they both anchor and objectify understanding – serving
as concrete reference points for ongoing dialogue and debate.
The Ingredients of a Classic
Study
As noted by Patricia Devine and Amanda Brodish (2003), there is a
difference between knowing what the classic studies in social
psychology are and knowing why they have become classics.
Moreover, there are no fixed criteria to decide whether a study can
be raised to this status. To adapt Tolstoy’s observation about the
nature of unhappy families in the first line of Anna Karenina, each
classic study is classic in its own way. Nevertheless, as Tolstoy noted
of happy families, there are some features that most of the classic
studies in social psychology share.
Big Questions
The single most important feature of the classic studies in social
psychology is that they address fundamental questions about human
sociality. Why do we conform and obey? Why do we fight and
oppress? Why do we help and support? In this regard, many of the
classic studies were inspired by large-scale world events that
demanded, but seemed to defy, comprehension. And the scale of
these events often motivated the researchers to be equally
ambitious in their quest for answers.

In this regard, nothing in the last century played a greater role in

shaping the sensibilities of social psychologists than the Second
World War and the Holocaust. It is therefore unsurprising to discover
that although many of the classic studies were conducted before
1945, most of those classic studies that came afterwards were
motivated by a desire to understand the behaviour of those who
participated in these events (both as perpetrators and victims), and
that they were conducted by researchers who had first-hand
experience of their devastating consequences. Dissatisfied with
tinkering at the edges, these researchers wanted their research to
engage powerfully with the stuff of fear and loathing, and the
dynamics of war and peace. And as a result of these intense
motivations they sought to conduct studies that captured the spirit
of the times and that were not only novel and intriguing, but also
forceful and compelling. Their point was to conduct research that
demanded attention and could not be brushed idly aside.

Accordingly, while a criticism of contemporary social psychological

research is that it has sometimes become bogged down in statistical
sophistication and methodological minutiae (what Iain Walker, 1997,
has referred to as ‘impeccable trivia’; see also Baumeister et al.,
2007; Rozin, 2009), this was never true of the studies included in
this volume. Thus, although much of the research that has come
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 Joelah, and Zebadiah, the sons of Jeroham of
Gedor.
6. the Korahites] Probably not the Levitic but the Calebite sons of
Korah (ii. 43), who belonged to Judah, are meant.

8‒15.
Gadite Adherents of David.

⁸And of the Gadites there separated

themselves unto David to the hold in the
wilderness, mighty men of valour, men trained
for war, that could handle shield and spear;
whose faces were like the faces of lions, and
they were as swift as the roes upon the
mountains; ⁹Ezer the chief, Obadiah the
second, Eliab the third;
8. And of the Gadites] The Gadites had the name of marauders
(Genesis xlix. 19), and David’s mode of life would attract them.
Chronologically verse 8 should precede verse 1; David was first “in
the hold” and afterwards in Ziklag. On the reference to Gad and
Manasseh (verse 19) see 2 Chronicles xv. 9.

separated themselves] i.e. left their brethren east of Jordan and

came west.

to the hold in the wilderness] It is uncertain whether this hold be

or be not the cave of Adullam. On the latter see xi. 15, note.

shield and spear] The reference is to the manner of fighting in

David’s day. At the threat of an attack an army was drawn up in close
array, shield touching shield and spears carried at the charge. Only
in a high state of discipline could men quickly and effectively handle
shield and spear thus (1 Samuel xvii. 2, 8, 21). (The Authorized
Version, “shield and buckler,” follows a mistake of several early
editions of the printed Hebrew text.)

as the roes] In David’s lament (2 Samuel i.) Jonathan is

compared to a lion (verse 23) and to a gazelle (verse 19 margin, the
same Hebrew word as for roe here).

¹⁰Mishmannah the fourth, Jeremiah the fifth;

¹¹Attai the sixth, Eliel the seventh; ¹²Johanan
the eighth, Elzabad the ninth; ¹³Jeremiah the
tenth, Machbannai the eleventh.
10. Jeremiah, the fifth] Compare verse 13, Jeremiah the tenth. A
very slight difference of spelling distinguishes the two words in the
Hebrew.

¹⁴These of the sons of Gad were captains of

the host: he that was least was equal to ¹ an
hundred, and the greatest to ¹ a thousand.
¹ Or, over.

14. he that was least ... thousand] Compare Leviticus xxvi. 8;

Isaiah xxx. 17.

¹⁵These are they that went over Jordan in the

first month, when it had overflown all its
banks; and they put to flight all them of the
valleys, both toward the east, and toward the
west.
15. in the first month] In Nisan (the month of harvest) when the
snow was melting and filling all streams; compare Joshua iii. 15.
 all them of the valleys] i.e. all inhabitants of the valleys who in the
interest of Saul sought to bar their march westward to join David.

16‒18.
Amasai and His Companions.

16‒18. These interesting and beautiful passages are so different

in style and sentiment from what precedes and what follows that they
would seem to be drawn from another source. It is quite possible that
they were inserted thus between Gad and Manasseh by the
Chronicler himself; but that they are a later addition is probable from
the fact that the adherents who came from Benjamin and perhaps
Judah (verses 5‒7, see note on Gederathite) are given above,
verses 1‒7.

¹⁶And there came of the children of Benjamin

and Judah to the hold unto David.
16. to the hold] See verse 8, notes.

¹⁷And David went out to meet them, and

answered and said unto them, If ye be come
peaceably unto me to help me, mine heart
shall be knit unto you: but if ye be come to
betray me to mine adversaries, seeing there is
no wrong ¹ in mine hands, the God of our
fathers look thereon, and rebuke it.
¹ Or, violence.

17. David went out to meet them] Instead of letting himself be

surprised he took up a favourable position in advance from which he
could hold parley with them. The south of Judah with its ravines and
cliffs affords many such positions.
 the God of our fathers, etc.] Compare the equally fine assertion of
integrity of conduct and of faith in God made by David in 1 Samuel
xxiv. 11 ff. If it be felt that in the later idealisation, which must be
recognised, we lose our knowledge of the real David, it should be
remembered that this very idealisation is in itself proof of the
greatness of David in mind and soul. The strong but simple faith and
the magnanimous bearing of David, which such a passage as the
present portrays, are no doubt true to fact, for they provide precisely
that historical basis without which the reverent and loving idealisation
of later generations had never come into existence.

¹⁸Then the spirit came ¹ upon Amasai, who was

chief of the thirty ², and he said, Thine are we,
David, and on thy side, thou son of Jesse:
peace, peace be unto thee, and peace be to
thine helpers; for thy God helpeth thee. Then
David received them, and made them captains
of the band.
¹ Hebrew clothed. ² Another reading is, captains.

18. the spirit came upon A.] Literally a spirit (i.e. from God)
clothed itself with (i.e. entered into) Amasai. Compare 2
Chronicles xxiv. 20; Judges vi. 34.

Amasai] Probably to be identified with “Amasa” (2 Samuel xvii.

25, xix. 13).

chief of the thirty] Thus the Kethīb; the Authorized Version],

following the Ḳerī, has “chief of the captains”; so also xi. 11, where
see note.

Thine are we, David, and on thy side] Literally “For thee, David,
and with thee.” This response “Thine are we ... helpeth thee” is a fine
fragment of Hebrew poetry, having an early simplicity of style, which
it is peculiarly interesting to find in so late a book as Chronicles. It is
assuredly not the composition of the Chronicler, but must be derived
from some independent source, and is perhaps a really old
traditional saying about David. See the Introduction § 5, p. xxxv.

for thy God helpeth thee] David’s frequent escapes from Saul
were felt to be due to Divine protection.

19‒22.
Manassite Adherents.

¹⁹Of Manasseh also there fell away some to

David, when he came with the Philistines
against Saul to battle, but they helped them
not: for the lords of the Philistines upon
advisement sent him away, saying, He will fall
away to his master Saul to the jeopardy of our
heads.
19. when he came with the Philistines] See 1 Samuel xxviii. 1, 2,
xxix. 1‒11.

but they helped them not] David’s men did not help the
Philistines.

upon advisement] “After consideration”; literally “by counsel.”

Compare xxi. 12, “advise thyself.”

to the jeopardy of our heads] Rather, at the price of our heads.

David became son-in-law to Saul at the price of the lives of two
hundred of the Philistines (1 Samuel xviii. 27); their lords here (in
Chronicles) express their dread lest David reconcile himself to Saul
by some act of treachery and slaughter done against his present
Philistine patrons; compare 1 Samuel xxix. 4 (“with” = “at the price
of”).
 ²⁰As he went to Ziklag, there fell to him of
Manasseh, Adnah, and Jozabad, and Jediael,
and Michael, and Jozabad, and Elihu, and
Zillethai, captains of thousands that were of
Manasseh.
20. As he went] i.e. As he returned (1 Samuel xxx. 1).

Jozabad] This name occurs twice; possibly in the original list

different patronymics were attached to the two mentions of the
name.

captains of thousands] Compare xv. 25; Micah v. 2. Tribes were

divided into “thousands” which were subdivided into “hundreds.”
These divisions were of civil as well as of military significance.

²¹And they helped David against the band of

rovers: for they were all mighty men of valour,
and were captains in the host.
21. the band of rovers] The reference is to the Amalekites who
burnt Ziklag (1 Samuel xxx. 1 ff.). The Hebrew word gĕdūd, here
translated “band,” is translated “troop” in 1 Samuel xxx. 8, 15.

and were captains] Render, and they became captains.

²²For from day to day there came to David to

help him, until it was a great host, like the host
of God.
22. the host of God] The phrase comes from Genesis xxxii. 2;
compare Psalms lxviii. 15 (Revised Version) “a mountain of God.”
The epithet “of God” is used to distinguish a thing as “very great.”
 23‒40 (compare 2 Samuel v. 1).
The Forces which came to Hebron to make David King.

²³And these are the numbers of the heads

of them that were armed for war, which came
to David to Hebron, to turn the kingdom of
Saul to him, according to the word of the
Lord.
23. And these are, etc.] It may confidently be said that the list as
it stands is the composition of the Chronicler himself, for the syntax
and vocabulary of the passage are his, and there is no evidence to
suggest that its statements are based on those of some ancient
document. Its value in the idealistic account of David which the
Chronicler furnishes is obvious, implying as it does not only that the
northern as well as the southern tribes concurred whole-heartedly in
the election of David, but also that the occasion was one of great
military display. On the huge numbers alleged to have come from the
North (Zebulun, Naphtali, Dan, and Asher being credited with
155,600 warriors) compare the following note, and, in general, on
midrashic exaggeration of numbers in Chronicles see the note on 2
Chronicles xvii. 14.

²⁴The children of Judah that bare shield and

spear were six thousand and eight hundred,
armed for war.
24. six thousand and eight hundred] Contrast the numbers
assigned to the northern tribes in verses 33 ff. It may be the idea of
the Chronicler that the unanimous support of the southern tribes
could be assumed, and that only chosen representatives of these
tribes attended. But much more probably the multitudes of Zebulun
(verse 33), etc. are simply due to his desire to magnify the share
taken by the north, whilst the problem of the numerical contrast with
Judah, etc. did not present itself to him as it does to us.
 ²⁵Of the children of Simeon, mighty men of
valour for the war, seven thousand and one
hundred. ²⁶Of the children of Levi four
thousand and six hundred.
25. Simeon] The most southerly of the tribes (iv. 24‒31). The
tribes are mentioned in order from south to north.

²⁷And Jehoiada was the leader of the house of

Aaron, and with him were three thousand and
seven hundred;
27. of the house of Aaron] Jehoiada was not high-priest, but
leader of the warriors of the house of Aaron. He may be the same
person as the father of Benaiah (xi. 22). Leader (Hebrew nagīd) is
the title given to the “Ruler” of the Temple (ix. 11).

²⁸and Zadok, a young man mighty of valour,

and of his father’s house twenty and two
captains.
28. Zadok] In xxvii. 17 he seems to occupy the position assigned
to Jehoiada in verse 27. Perhaps he succeeded him.

²⁹And of the children of Benjamin, the brethren

of Saul, three thousand: for hitherto the
greatest part of them had kept ¹ their allegiance
to the house of Saul. ³⁰And of the children of
Ephraim twenty thousand and eight hundred,
mighty men of valour, famous men in their
fathers’ houses.
 ¹ Hebrew kept the charge of the house.

29. hitherto] i.e. up to the time referred to in 2 Samuel v. 1.

³¹And of the half tribe of Manasseh eighteen

thousand, which were expressed by name, to
come and make David king.
31. which were expressed by name] Suggesting that a census list
was kept, recording however not necessarily individuals but simply
households. The phrase does not mean picked representatives.
Note how the Chronicler skilfully lightens his statistics by some
descriptive phrase: so also in verses 32 ff.

³²And of the children of Issachar, men that had

understanding of the times, to know what
Israel ought to do; the heads of them were two
hundred; and all their brethren were at their
commandment.
32. that had understanding of the times] Compare Esther i. 13,
“which knew the times.” “Times” are “opportunities,” “vicissitudes”
(compare xxix. 30), “experiences,” good or bad (compare Psalms
xxxi. 15). The phrase means, therefore, “men of experience, having
knowledge of the world.” Some suppose that the phrase refers to
astrological skill (knowledge of auspicious “times and seasons”).

³³Of Zebulun, such as were able to go out in

the host, that could set the battle in array, with
all manner of instruments of war, fifty
thousand; and that could order the battle
array, and were not of double heart. ³⁴And of
 Naphtali a thousand captains, and with them
with shield and spear thirty and seven
thousand. ³⁵And of the Danites that could set
the battle in array, twenty and eight thousand
and six hundred. ³⁶And of Asher, such as were
able to go out in the host, that could set the
battle in array, forty thousand.
33. such as were able, etc.] This description is intended to
exclude mere lads (such as David appeared to be, 1 Samuel xvii. 33)
who might be in attendance on the warriors.

that could order, etc.] i.e. who moved as one man in battle array;
compare verse 8, note on shield and spear. For “of double heart”
compare 2 Chronicles xxx. 12, “one heart.”

³⁷And on the other side of Jordan, of the

Reubenites, and the Gadites, and of the half
tribe of Manasseh, with all manner of
instruments of war for the battle, an hundred
and twenty thousand.
37. an hundred and twenty thousand] Evidently a round number,
giving 40,000 to each tribe; compare verse 36.

³⁸All these, being men of war, that could order

the battle array, came with a perfect heart to
Hebron, to make David king over all Israel:
and all the rest also of Israel were of one heart
to make David king.
38. with a perfect heart] i.e. with whole, undivided heart.
 ³⁹And they were there with David three days, eating and drinking:
for their brethren had made preparation for them.

39. eating and drinking] The feasting probably began with the
sacrificial meal by which a covenant was usually ratified; compare
Genesis xxxi. 46, 54.

⁴⁰Moreover they that were nigh unto them,

even as far as Issachar and Zebulun and
Naphtali, brought bread on asses, and on
camels, and on mules, and on oxen, victual of
meal, cakes of figs, and clusters of raisins,
and wine, and oil, and oxen, and sheep in
abundance: for there was joy in Israel.
40. they that were nigh unto them] The relatives of the assembled
warriors cared for their needs.

as far as Issachar] Even those warriors who came from the

northern districts were provisioned by their kinsfolk.

Chapter XIII.
1‒14 (= 2 Samuel vi. 1‒11).
Removal of the Ark from Kiriath-jearim to the House of
Obed-edom. Death of Uzza.

In harmony with his conviction that the acts of David in promoting

or instituting the religious ceremonial of Israel were the supremely
important events of his reign, the Chronicler represents the removal
of the Ark from Kiriath-jearim as being the first concern of the new
monarch and his first action subsequent to the capture of Jerusalem.
David’s building of a royal residence for himself and his family in
Jerusalem, and his victories over the Philistines, which in 2 Samuel
precede the removal of the Ark, are relegated to the second place in
Chronicles (see chapter xiv.). The transposition of order is effected
by means of the introductory verses 1‒4, which are from the
Chronicler’s own hand.

It is convenient to draw attention here to a matter of some

importance in the narrative of Chronicles, viz. that the Chronicler
believed the Tabernacle (Mishkān) of the Lord (Exodus xxxv.‒xl.)
“which Moses made in the wilderness” (1 Chronicles xxi. 29) to be in
existence in David’s day and to be standing at Gibeon (see xvi. 39,
and 2 Chronicles i. 3). Yet when the Ark was taken into the city of
David it was placed not in the Mishkān but “in the tent (Ohel) which
David pitched for it” (xvi. verse 1 = 2 Samuel vi. 17). Thus in
Chronicles the two holy things, the Ark and the Tabernacle, are
represented as separated, and a separate daily service has to be
instituted for each; Asaph and his brethren being said to minister
before the Ark in the city of David (1 Chronicles xvi. 37), and Zadok
and his brethren before the Tabernacle at Gibeon (xvi. verse 39).
The worship at Gibeon as well as Jerusalem entailed a manifest
breach of the Deuteronomic law that at one sanctuary only must
worship be offered. It is hard to say what the Chronicler thought of
David’s strange disregard of a stringent law which (on the
Chronicler’s theory) was well known to David, and which the
Chronicler used as one of the criteria distinguishing the good from
the evil kings from Solomon onwards. Doubtless David’s
ecclesiastical arrangements were regarded as temporary, pending
the building of the Temple, but surely the Mishkān could have been
removed to Jerusalem almost as easily as the Ark. Why then does
the perfect king fail in this duty? The Chronicler ignores the difficulty
completely, probably because he was unable to see or conjecture
any adequate explanation of David’s conduct. It goes without saying
that in reality the Deuteronomic law of the one sanctuary was of
much later origin than the time of David, and the difficulty is an
unreal one.
 ¹And David consulted with the captains of
thousands and of hundreds, even with every
leader.
1. David consulted with the captains, etc.] The Chronicler is fond
of associating the people with the king in religious measures so as to
minimise the appearance of arbitrary power which is suggested by
the language of the books of Samuel and of Kings; compare verse 4
(the assembly said that they would do so), also 2 Chronicles xxx. 2,
4. Similarly in xxviii. 2 the king addresses the elders as My brethren.
Doubtless the Chronicler had in mind Deuteronomy xvii. 20.

²And David said unto all the assembly of

Israel, If it seem good unto you, and if it be of
the Lord our God, let us send abroad every
where unto our brethren that are left in all the
land ¹ of Israel, with ² whom the priests and
Levites are in their cities that have suburbs ³,
that they may gather themselves unto us: and
let us bring again the ark of our God to us:
¹ Hebrew lands.

² Or, and with them to the priests and Levites which are &c.

³ Or, pasture lands.

2. let us send abroad every where] The Hebrew phrase is

peculiar; let us spread, let us send, i.e. let the invitation be sent far
and wide throughout the land and not limited to the southern tribes.

the priests and Levites] In Samuel no mention of the Levites is

made in the account of the removal of the Ark. The Chronicler retells
the story in accordance with the conviction that the complete
Levitical ceremonial with which he was familiar was actually in
operation in the days of David.

in their cities that have suburbs] or, as margin, ... that have
pasture lands; i.e. following the provision that cities are to be
assigned to the Levites with “suburbs for their cattle and for their
substance, and for all their beasts” (Numbers xxxv. 2‒7; compare
Joshua xiv. 4, xxi. 2).

³for we sought not unto it in the days of Saul.

⁴And all the assembly said that they would do
so: for the thing was right in the eyes of all the
people.
3. we sought not unto it] The meaning is to seek with care, to
care for. Compare xv. 13.

⁵So David assembled all Israel together, from

Shihor the brook of Egypt even unto the
entering in of Hamath, to bring the ark of God
from Kiriath-jearim.
5. from Shihor the brook of Egypt] Shihor was the name of the
brook (now wady el-Arish) which divided Palestine from Egypt
(Joshua xiii. 3, xv. 4; Jeremiah ii. 18).

the entering in of Hamath] Hamath (now Hama) is on the

Orontes, see note on xviii. 5. The entering in of Hamath is to be
identified with the Beḳā‘a, a broad valley between Lebanon and Anti-
Libanus watered by the Orontes, Bädeker, Palestine⁵, p. 372. It is
mentioned as on the northern frontier of Israel in Joshua xiii. 5; 1
Kings viii. 65, and elsewhere.
 ⁶And David went up, and all Israel, to Baalah,
that is, to Kiriath-jearim, which belonged to
Judah, to bring up from thence the ark of God,
the Lord that sitteth ¹ upon the cherubim,
which ² is called by the Name.
¹ Or, dwelleth between.

² Or, where the Name is called on.

6. to Baalah, that is, to Kiriath-jearim] A Gibeonite city, probably

Ḳaryet el-‘Enab (“City of Grapes”) some 7 miles north-west of
Jerusalem. Compare Joshua xv. 9; in Joshua xv. 60 Kiriath-baal.

sitteth upon the cherubim] Compare Ezekiel i. 26.

which is called by the Name] The God whose is the Ark is here
distinguished from the gods of the nations as the God who bears the
ineffable Name.

⁷And they carried the ark of God upon a new

cart, and brought it out of the house of
Abinadab: and Uzza and Ahio drave the cart.
7. a new cart] A new cart was chosen as one which had not been
profaned by common work. So (Judges xvi. 11, 12) new ropes
“wherewith no work hath been done” were used in the attempt to
bind the consecrated man, Samson. So also (Mark xi. 2, 7) our Lord
rode into Jerusalem on a colt “whereon no man ever yet sat.”

the house of Abinadab] Compare 1 Samuel vii. 1, 2; also 2

Samuel vi. 3. Here the Ark had been since the Philistines restored it
to Israelite territory.
 ⁸And David and all Israel played before God
with all their might: even with songs, and with
harps, and with psalteries, and with timbrels,
and with cymbals, and with trumpets.
8. played] The Hebrew word means to sport, to dance (compare
xv. 29).

with all their might: even with songs] A better reading than that of
2 Samuel vi. 5, with all manner of instruments made of fir wood.

psalteries] The instrument here meant (Hebrew nēbhel) “is

generally identified at the present day with an instrument called the
santir still in use among the Arabs. This consists of a long box with a
flat bottom covered with a somewhat convex sounding-board over
which the strings are stretched.” (Nowack, Hebräische Archäologie,
I. 275.) The “harp” (Hebrew kinnōr) was a simpler instrument (like
the Greek Kithara), a lyre rather than a true harp.

For a full discussion of nēbhel and kinnōr see Driver, Amos, p.

234, or the articles Music in Encyclopedia Biblia or Hastings’
Dictionary of the Bible.

⁹And when they came unto the threshing-floor

of Chidon, Uzza put forth his hand to hold the
ark; for the oxen stumbled ¹.
¹ Or, were restive Or, threw it down.

9. the threshing-floor of Chidon] LXX. (B) omits of Chidon. In 2

Samuel vi. 6, Nacon’s threshing-floor. Nacon is probably a textual
blunder.

to hold the ark] The Chronicler from a feeling of reverence

shrinks from saying, and took hold of it (2 Samuel vi. 6).
 stumbled] margin threw it down, but the meaning is perhaps
rather, let it go, i.e. let the cart on which the Ark was slip backwards.
The same Hebrew word is used 2 Kings ix. 33; there Jehu in his
mocking humour says not, Throw her down, but, Let her go, an
ambiguous command meant to throw as much responsibility as
possible upon those who obeyed it.

¹⁰And the anger of the Lord was kindled

against Uzza, and he smote him, because he
put forth his hand to the ark: and there he died
before God.
10. before God] In 2 Samuel vi. 7, by the ark of God.

¹¹And David was displeased, because the

Lord had broken forth upon Uzza: and he
called that place Perez-uzza ¹, unto this day.
¹²And David was afraid of God that day,
saying, How shall I bring the ark of God home
to me?
¹ That is, The breach of Uzza.

11. was displeased] Rather, was wroth, presumably against his

advisers for not warning him that the method adopted for the
removal of the Ark was wrong; compare xv. 13.

had broken forth] Literally as Authorized Version, had made a

breach upon Uzza. Compare Exodus xix. 22.

Perez-uzza] The meaning of the name is given by the margin The

breach of Uzza.
 ¹³So David removed not the ark unto him into
the city of David, but carried it aside into the
house of Obed-edom the Gittite.
13. Obed-edom the Gittite] As Gittite means man of Gath, Obed-
edom was doubtless of Philistine origin; perhaps he attached himself
to David during David’s sojourn among the Philistines. In xv. 18, 24,
xvi. 38, xxvi. 4 an Obed-edom is mentioned as a Levite and a porter
(doorkeeper) for the Ark, and elsewhere (xv. 21, xvi. 5) as a singer
(see the notes on xv. 18, and xvi. 38).

¹⁴And the ark of God remained with the family

of Obed-edom in his house three months: and
the Lord blessed the house of Obed-edom,
and all that he had.
14. with the family of Obed-edom in his house] Render, by (i.e.
near) the house of Obed-edom in its own house. The Chronicler
(regarding Obed-edom as a foreigner if not also an idolater) finds it
necessary to alter the expression found in 2 Samuel vi. 11, “in the
house of Obed-edom the Gittite.” (On the significance of the name—
literally servant of Edom—see Driver, Samuel², pp. 268, 269.)

blessed] Targum blessed with sons and sons’ sons.

 Chapter XIV.
(= 2 Samuel v. 11‒25).
David at Jerusalem. Two Philistine Attacks Repulsed.

The Chronicler derives this chapter from Samuel but gives it in a

setting of his own. To agree with Samuel it should immediately follow
1 Chronicles xi. 9 and should immediately precede 1 Chronicles xiii.
1. In Samuel the two attempts to remove the Ark to the city of David,
the first unsuccessful, the second successful, are related in
immediate succession; the Chronicler interposes between them the
double repulse of the Philistines. See the head-note to chapter xiii.

1, 2.
Hiram’s [first] Embassy to David.

The dislocation of the narrative mentioned in the last note has

concealed the occasion of Hiram’s embassy. The narrative of 2
Samuel v. 9‒11 suggests that Hiram heard of the building works
which David was carrying on at Jerusalem and so sent materials and
workmen to assist. David accepted the welcome offer (which
ultimately led to an alliance) as a sign of Divine favour.

¹And Hiram king of Tyre sent messengers

to David, and cedar trees, and masons, and
carpenters, to build him an house. ²And David
perceived that the Lord had established him
king over Israel, for his kingdom was exalted
on high, for his people Israel’s sake.
 1. Hiram] Other forms of this name are Huram and (1 Kings v. 10,
18) Hirom.

3‒7 (= iii. 5‒8 and 2 Samuel v. 13‒16).

David’s Family in Jerusalem.

³And David took more wives at Jerusalem:

and David begat more sons and daughters.
3. more wives] In 2 Samuel v. 13 more concubines and wives.
The Chronicler omits or modifies statements which tend to David’s
discredit.

⁴And these are the names of the children

which he had in Jerusalem; Shammua, and
Shobab, Nathan, and Solomon; ⁵and Ibhar,
and Elishua, and Elpelet; ⁶and Nogah, and
Nepheg, and Japhia; ⁷and Elishama, and
Beeliada, and Eliphelet.
4. these are the names] The names seem better preserved here
than in either of the parallel passages; compare notes on iii. 5‒8.

Shammua ... Solomon] All these four are attributed to Bath-shua

(= Bath-sheba) in iii. 5.

8‒17 (= 2 Samuel v. 17‒25).

The Double Repulse of the Philistines.

⁸And when the Philistines heard that David

was anointed king over all Israel, all the
Philistines went up to seek David: and David
heard of it, and went out against ¹ them.