Psychological experiments that reveal the worst sides of humanity
We are used to thinking of ourselves as intelligent, independent people who are not inclined to inexplicable manifestations of cruelty or indifference. In fact, this is not at all the case - in certain circumstances, Homo sapiens are surprisingly easy to part with their "humanity."
1. Asch's Experiment (1951)
The research focused on the study of conformity in groups. Volunteer students were allegedly invited for an eye test. The subject was in a group with seven actors, whose results were not taken into account when summing up the results. Young people were shown a card with a vertical line. Then they were shown another card, where three lines were already depicted - the participants were asked to determine which of them corresponded in size to the line from the first card. The subject's opinions were asked last.
A similar procedure was carried out 18 times. In the first two runs, the agreed participants called the correct answers, which was not difficult, since the coincidence of the lines on all the cards was obvious. But then they began to unanimously adhere to the obviously wrong option. Sometimes one or two actors in the group were instructed to choose the correct options 12 times. But despite this, the subjects experienced extreme discomfort that their opinion did not coincide with the opinion of the majority.
As a result, 75% of students were not ready to oppose the opinion of the majority at least once - they pointed to a false option, despite the obvious visual inconsistency of the lines. 37% of all answers turned out to be false, and only one subject from a control group of thirty-five people made one mistake. Moreover, if the group members disagreed, or when there were two independent subjects in the group, the probability of making a mistake decreased four times.
What does this say about us?
People are highly dependent on the opinion of the group in which they are. Even if it is contrary to common sense or our beliefs, this does not mean that we will be able to resist it. As long as there is at least a ghostly threat of condemnation from others, it can be much easier for us to drown out our inner voice than to defend our position.
2. The Good Samaritan Experiment (1973)
The parable of the Good Samaritan tells how a traveler gratuitously helped on the road a wounded and robbed man, by whom all the others passed. Psychologists Daniel Baston and John Darley decided to test how much such moral imperatives affect a person's behavior in a stressful situation.
One group of seminary students was told the parable of the Good Samaritan and then asked to preach a sermon on what they had heard on another campus building. The second group was asked to prepare a speech on various job opportunities. At the same time, some of the subjects were asked to especially hurry up on the way to the audience. On the way from one building to another, the students met a man lying on the ground in an empty alley who looked like he needed help.
It turned out that the students who prepared the speech about the Good Samaritan on the way reacted to such an emergency situation in the same way as the second group of subjects - only time constraints influenced their decision. Only 10% of seminarians who were asked to come to the classroom as soon as possible helped a stranger - even if not long before they heard a lecture about the importance of helping a neighbor in a difficult situation.
What does this say about us?
It is surprisingly easy for us to abandon religion or any other ethical imperative when it suits us. People tend to justify their indifference with the words "this does not concern me", "I still cannot help anything" or "they will cope here without me." Most often this happens not during disasters or crisis situations, but in the course of everyday life.
3. The experiment of the indifferent bystander (1968)
In 1964, a criminal attack on a woman, which was repeated twice within half an hour, ended in her death on the way to the hospital. More than a dozen people became witnesses to the crime (in its sensational publication, Time magazine mistakenly pointed to 38 people), and, nevertheless, no one bothered to treat the incident with due attention. Based on these events, John Darley and Beebe Latane decided to conduct their own psychological experiment.
They invited volunteers to participate in the discussion. Hoping that extremely sensitive issues would be discussed, the agreed participants were invited to communicate remotely - using intercom. During the conversation, one of the interlocutors simulated an epileptic seizure, which could be clearly recognized by the sounds from the speakers. When the conversation took place one-on-one, 85% of the subjects reacted vividly to what had happened and tried to help the victim. But in a situation where the participant in the believed experiment that in addition to him, 4 more people were participating in the conversation, only 31% had the strength to make an attempt to somehow influence the situation. Everyone else thought that someone else should do it.
What does this say about us?
If you think that a large number of people around you ensure your safety, this is not at all the case. The crowd can be indifferent to the misfortune of others, especially when people from marginal groups find themselves in a difficult situation. As long as there is someone else nearby, we are happy to shift responsibility for what is happening to him.
4. Stanford Prison Experiment (1971)
The US Navy wanted to better understand the nature of conflicts in its correctional facilities, so the department agreed to pay for an experiment by behavioral psychologist Philip Zimbardo. The scientist equipped the basement of Stanford University as a prison and invited male volunteers to take on the roles of guards and prisoners, all of whom were college students.
The participants had to pass a test for health and mental stability, after which they were divided by lot into two groups of 12 people - overseers and prisoners. The guards wore uniforms from the military store that mirrored the actual uniforms of the prison overseers. They were also given wooden clubs and mirrored sunglasses, behind which they could not see their eyes. The inmates were provided with uncomfortable clothes without underwear and rubber slippers. They were only called by the numbers that were sewn onto the uniform. They also could not remove the small chains from their ankles, which were supposed to constantly remind them of their imprisonment. At the beginning of the experiment, the prisoners were allowed to go home. From there, they were allegedly arrested by the state police, who facilitated the experiment. They were fingerprinted photographing and reading rights. Then they were stripped naked, examined and assigned numbers.
Unlike the inmates, the guards worked in shifts, but many of them happily went to work overtime during the experiment. All subjects received $ 15 per day ($ 85 inflation adjusted for 2012). Zimbardo himself acted as the chief administrator of the prison. The experiment was supposed to last 4 weeks. The guards were given only one task - bypassing the prison, which they could carry out as they wanted, but without the use of force against the prisoners.
On the second day, the prisoners staged a riot, during which they barricaded the entrance to the cell with beds and teased the guards. They responded by using fire extinguishers to calm the unrest. Soon they were already forcing their charges to sleep naked on bare concrete, and the opportunity to use the shower became a privilege for the prisoners. Terrible unsanitary conditions began to spread in the prison - prisoners were denied access to the toilet outside the cell, and the buckets they used to relieve needs were forbidden to be removed as punishment.
Every third guard showed sadistic inclinations - the prisoners were bullied, some were forced to wash the cisterns with their bare hands. Two of them were so mentally traumatized that they had to be excluded from the experiment. One of the new participants, who replaced the retired ones, was so shocked by what he saw that he soon went on a hunger strike. In retaliation, he was placed in a cramped closet - a solitary cell. Other inmates were given the choice of giving up blankets or leaving the troublemaker alone overnight. Only one person agreed to donate his comfort. About 50 observers watched the work of the prison, but only the girl Zimbardo, who came to conduct several interviews with the participants in the experiment, was outraged by what was happening. The Stanford prison was closed six days after people were sent there.
What does this say about us?
People very quickly accept the social roles imposed on them and are so much carried away by their own power that the line of what is permissible in relation to others is rapidly erased from them. The participants in the Stanford Experiment were not sadists, they were ordinary people. Like, perhaps, many Nazi soldiers or torture overseers at Abu Ghraib prison. Higher education and strong mental health did not prevent the subjects from using violence against those people over whom they had power.
5. Milgram's Experiment (1961)
During the Nuremberg trials, many convicted Nazis justified their actions by the fact that they were simply following someone else's orders. Military discipline did not allow them to disobey, even if they did not like the instructions themselves. Curious about these circumstances, Yale psychologist Stanley Milgram decided to test how far people can go in causing harm to others, if it is part of their job.
Participants in the experiment were recruited for a small fee from among volunteers, none of whom raised concerns among the experimenters. At the very beginning, the roles of "student" and "teacher" were supposedly played out between the subject and the specially trained actor, and the subject always got the second role. After that, the actor- "student" was demonstratively tied to a chair with electrodes, and the "teacher" was given an introductory current discharge of 45 V and taken to another room. There he was seated behind a generator, where 30 switches were located from 15 to 450 V with a step of 15 V. Under the control of the experimenter - a man in a white coat who was in the room all the time - the "teacher "had to check the memorization of the set by the" student " pairs of associations that were read to him in advance. For every mistake, he received a punishment in the form of a current discharge. With each new error, the rank increased. The switch groups have been signed. The closing caption said the following: "Dangerous: a hard-to-bear blow." The last two radio buttons were outside the groups, were graphically separated and marked with the "XXX" marker. The "student" answered with four buttons, his answer was indicated on a light board in front of the teacher. The "teacher" and his ward were separated by a blank wall.
If the “teacher” hesitated when assigning a punishment, the experimenter, whose persistence increased as the doubts grew, with the help of specially prepared phrases persuaded him to continue. At the same time, he could not threaten the "teacher" in any way. Upon reaching 300 volts, clear blows to the wall were heard from the "student" room, after which the "student" stopped answering questions. Silence for 10 seconds was interpreted by the experimenter as an incorrect answer, and he asked to increase the impact power. On the next discharge of 315 volts, even more persistent blows were repeated, after which the "student" stopped responding to questions. A little later, in another version of the experiment, the rooms were not so soundproofed, and the "student" warned in advance, that he had heart problems and twice - at discharges of 150 and 300 volts, complained of poor health. In the latter case, he refused to continue his participation in the experiment and began to scream loudly from behind the wall when new blows were assigned to him. After 350 V, he stopped giving signs of life, continuing to receive current discharges. The experiment was considered complete when the "teacher" applied the maximum possible punishment three times.
65% of all subjects reached the last switch and did not stop until the experimenter asked them to. Only 12.5% refused to continue right after the victim knocked on the wall for the first time - everyone else continued to press the button even after the answers stopped coming from behind the wall. Later, this experiment was repeated many times - in other countries and circumstances, with or without remuneration, with male and female groups - if the basic basic conditions remained unchanged, at least 60% of the subjects reached the end of the scale - despite their own stress and discomfort.
What does this say about us?
Even being severely depressed, contrary to all the forecasts of experts, the overwhelming majority of the subjects were ready to conduct fatal electric shocks through a stranger only because there was a man in a white coat nearby who told them to do it. Most people are surprisingly easy to follow the lead of authorities, even if it has devastating or tragic consequences.
