Man and the features of his personality have been the object of interest and study of the great minds of mankind for more than one century. And from the very beginning of the development of psychological science to the present day, people have managed to develop and significantly improve their skills in this difficult but exciting business. Therefore, now, in order to obtain reliable data in the study of the characteristics of the human psyche and his personality, people use a large number of various methods and methods of research in psychology. And one of the methods that have gained the greatest popularity and proven themselves from the most practical side is a psychological experiment.

We decided to consider individual examples of the most famous, interesting and even inhumane and shocking socio-psychological experiments that were carried out on people, regardless of the general material, due to their importance and significance. But at the beginning of this part of our course, we will once again recall what a psychological experiment is and what are its features, and also briefly touch on the types and characteristics of the experiment.

What is an experiment?

Experiment in psychology- this is a certain experience, which is carried out in special conditions, in order to obtain psychological data by interfering with the researcher in the process of the subject's activity. Both a specialist scientist and a simple layman can act as a researcher during the experiment.

The main characteristics and features of the experiment are:

• The ability to change any variable and create new conditions to identify new patterns;
• Possibility to choose a starting point;
• Possibility of repeated holding;
• The ability to include other methods of psychological research in the experiment: test, survey, observation, and others.

The experiment itself can be of several types: laboratory, natural, aerobatic, explicit, hidden, etc.

If you have not studied the first lessons of our course, then you will probably be interested to know that you can learn more about the experiment and other research methods in psychology in our lesson “Methods of Psychology”. Now we turn to the most famous psychological experiments.

The most famous psychological experiments

hawthorne experiment

The name Hawthorne experiment refers to a series of socio-psychological experiments that were conducted from 1924 to 1932 in American city Hawthorne at the Western Electrics factory by a group of researchers led by psychologist Elton Mayo. The prerequisite for the experiment was a decrease in labor productivity among factory workers. Studies that have been conducted on this issue have not been able to explain the reasons for this decline. Because factory management was interested in raising productivity, scientists were given complete freedom of action. Their goal was to identify the relationship between the physical conditions of work and the efficiency of workers.

After a long study, scientists came to the conclusion that labor productivity is affected by social conditions and, mainly, the emergence of workers' interest in the work process, as a result of their awareness of their participation in the experiment. The mere fact that workers are singled out in a separate group and they receive special attention from scientists and managers already affects the efficiency of workers. By the way, during the Hawthorne experiment, the Hawthorne effect was revealed, and the experiment itself raised the authority of psychological research as scientific methods.

Knowing about the results of the Hawthorne experiment, as well as about the effect, we can apply this knowledge in practice, namely: to have a positive impact on our activities and the activities of other people. Parents can improve the development of their children, educators can improve student achievement, employers can improve the efficiency of their employees and productivity. To do this, you can try to announce that a certain experiment will take place, and the people to whom you announce this are its important component. For the same purpose, you can apply the introduction of any innovation. But you can learn more about it here.

And you can find out the details of the Hawthorne experiment.

Milgram experiment

The Milgram experiment was first described by an American social psychologist in 1963. His goal was to find out how much suffering some people can cause to others, and innocent people, provided that this is their job duties. The participants in the experiment were told that they were studying the effect of pain on memory. And the participants were the experimenter himself, the real subject ("teacher") and the actor who played the role of another subject ("student"). The “student” had to memorize the words from the list, and the “teacher” had to check his memory and, in case of an error, punish him with an electric discharge, each time increasing its strength.

Initially, the Milgram experiment was carried out in order to find out how the inhabitants of Germany could take part in the destruction of a huge number of people during the Nazi terror. As a result, the experiment clearly demonstrated the inability of people (in this case, "teachers") to resist the boss (researcher), who ordered the "work" to continue, despite the fact that the "student" suffered. As a result of the experiment, it was revealed that the need to obey authorities is deeply rooted in the human mind, even under the condition internal conflict and moral suffering. Milgram himself noted that under the pressure of authority, adequate adults are able to go very far.

If we think for a while, we will see that, in fact, the results of the Milgram experiment tell us, among other things, about the inability of a person to independently decide what to do and how to behave when someone is “above” him higher in rank, status, etc. The manifestation of these features of the human psyche, unfortunately, very often leads to disastrous results. In order for our society to be truly civilized, people must always learn to be guided by a human attitude towards each other, as well as ethical norms and moral principles that their conscience dictates to them, and not the authority and power of other people.

You can get acquainted with the details of the Milgram experiment.

Stanford Prison Experiment

The Stanford Prison Experiment was conducted by American psychologist Philip Zimbardo in 1971 at Stanford. It explored a person's reaction to the conditions of imprisonment, the restriction of freedom and the impact on his behavior of the imposed social role. Funding was provided by the US Navy in order to explain the causes of conflicts in marines and correctional institutions of the Navy. For the experiment, men were selected, some of whom became "prisoners", and the other part - "guards".

"Guards" and "prisoners" very quickly got used to their roles, and situations in a makeshift prison sometimes arose very dangerous. Sadistic inclinations were manifested in a third of the "guards", and the "prisoners" received severe moral injuries. The experiment, designed for two weeks, was stopped after six days, because. he started to get out of control. The Stanford prison experiment is often compared to the Milgram experiment we described above.

AT real life one can see how any justifying ideology supported by the state and society can make people overly receptive and submissive, and the power of authorities has a strong impact on the personality and psyche of a person. Watch yourself, and you will see visual confirmation of how certain conditions and situations affect your internal state and shape behavior more than the internal characteristics of your personality. It is very important to be able to always be yourself and remember your values ​​in order not to be influenced by external factors. And this can be done only with the help of constant self-control and awareness, which, in turn, need regular and systematic training.

Details of the Stanford Prison Experiment can be found by following this link.

Ringelmann experiment

The Ringelmann experiment (aka the Ringelmann effect) was first described in 1913 and carried out in 1927 by the French professor of agricultural engineering, Maximilian Ringelmann. This experiment was carried out out of curiosity, but revealed a pattern of decrease in people's productivity depending on the increase in the number of people in the group in which they work. For the experiment, a random selection was carried out. different quantity people to do a specific job. In the first case, it was weight lifting, and in the second, tug of war.

One person could lift as much as possible, for example, a weight of 50 kg. Therefore, two people should have been able to lift 100 kg, because. the result should increase in direct proportion. But the effect was different: two people were able to lift only 93% of the weight that 100% of which could be lifted alone. When the group of people was increased to eight people, they only lifted 49% of the weight. In the case of tug of war, the effect was the same: an increase in the number of people reduced the percentage of efficiency.

It can be concluded that when we rely only on own forces, then we make every effort to achieve the result, and when we work in a group, we often rely on someone else. The problem lies in the passivity of actions, and this passivity is more social than physical. Solitary work makes us reflex to get the most out of ourselves, and in group work the result is not so significant. Therefore, if you need to do something very important, then it is best to rely only on yourself and not rely on the help of other people, because then you will give your best and achieve your goal, and other people are not so important what is important to you.

More information about the Ringelmann experiment/effect can be found here.

Experiment "I and others"

"Me and Others" is a Soviet popular science film of 1971, which features footage of several psychological experiments, the course of which is commented on by the announcer. The experiments in the film reflect the influence of the opinions of others on a person and his ability to think out what he could not remember. All experiments were prepared and conducted by psychologist Valeria Mukhina.

Experiments shown in the film:

• "Attack": the subjects must describe the details of an impromptu attack and recall the signs of the attackers.
• "Scientist or killer": the subjects are shown a portrait of the same person, having previously presented him as a scientist or a killer. Participants must make psychological picture this person.
• “Both are white”: black and white pyramids are placed on the table in front of the child participants. Three of the children say that both pyramids are white, testing the fourth for suggestibility. The results of the experiment are very interesting. Later, this experiment was carried out with the participation of adults.
• "Sweet salty porridge": three-quarters of the porridge in the bowl is sweet, and one is salty. Three children are given porridge and they say it is sweet. The fourth is given a salty "site". Task: to check what the name of the porridge will be called by a child who has tasted a salty “site” when the other three say that it is sweet, thereby testing the importance of public opinion.
• "Portraits": participants are shown 5 portraits and asked to find out if there are two photos of the same person among them. At the same time, all participants, except for one who came later, must say that two different photos are a photo of the same person. The essence of the experiment is also to find out how the opinion of the majority affects the opinion of one.
• Shooting range: there are two targets in front of the student. If he shoots to the left, then a ruble will fall out, which he can take for himself, if to the right, then the ruble will go to the needs of the class. The left target initially had more hit marks. It is necessary to find out which target the student will shoot at if he sees that many of his comrades shot at the left target.

The overwhelming majority of the results of the experiments conducted in the film showed that for people (both for children and adults) what others say and their opinion is very important. So it is in life: very often we give up our beliefs and opinions when we see that the opinions of others do not coincide with our own. That is, we can say that we lose ourselves among the rest. For this reason, many people do not achieve their goals, betray their dreams, follow the lead of the public. You need to be able to maintain your individuality in any conditions and always think only with your head. After all, first of all, it will serve you well.

By the way, in 2010 a remake of this film was made, in which the same experiments were presented. If you wish, you can find both of these films on the Internet.

"Monsterous" experiment

A monstrous experiment was conducted in 1939 in the United States by psychologist Wendell Johnson and his graduate student Mary Tudor in order to find out how susceptible children are to suggestion. For the experiment, 22 orphans from the city of Davenport were selected. They were divided into two groups. The children from the first group were told about how wonderful and correct they were speaking, and they were praised in every possible way. The other half of the children were convinced that their speech was full of flaws, and they were called miserable stutterers.

The results of this monstrous experiment were also monstrous: in the majority of children from the second group, who did not have any speech defects, all the symptoms of stuttering began to develop and take root, which persisted throughout their later life. The experiment itself was hidden from the public for a very long time so as not to damage the reputation of Dr. Johnson. Then, nevertheless, people learned about this experiment. Later, by the way, similar experiments were carried out by the Nazis on concentration camp prisoners.

Looking at life modern society, sometimes you are amazed at how parents raise their children these days. You can often see how they scold their children, insult them, call them names, call them very unpleasant words. It is not surprising that people with a broken psyche and developmental disabilities grow out of young children. You need to understand that everything that we say to our children, and even more so if we say it often, will eventually find its reflection in their inner world and the formation of their personality. We need to carefully monitor everything that we say to our children, how we communicate with them, what kind of self-esteem we form and what values ​​we instill. Only healthy upbringing and true parental love can make our sons and daughters adequate people ready for adulthood and able to become part of a normal and healthy society.

More detailed information about the "monstrous" experiment is.

Project "Aversion"

This terrible project was carried out from 1970 to 1989 in the South African army under the "leadership" of Colonel Aubrey Levin. It was a secret program designed to purge the ranks of the South African army from people of non-traditional sexual orientation. The "participants" of the experiment, according to official figures, were about 1,000 people, although the exact number of victims is unknown. To achieve a "good" goal, scientists used a variety of means: from drugs and electroshock therapy to castration with chemicals and sex reassignment surgery.

The Aversion project failed: it turned out to be impossible to change the sexual orientation of military personnel. And the “approach” itself was not based on any scientific evidence about homosexuality and transsexuality. Many of the victims of this project have never been able to rehabilitate themselves. Some committed suicide.

Of course, this project concerned only persons of non-traditional sexual orientation. But if we talk about those who are different from the rest in general, then we can often see that society does not want to accept people "not like" the rest. Even the slightest manifestation of individuality can cause ridicule, hostility, misunderstanding and even aggression from the majority of "normal". Each person is an individuality, a personality with its own characteristics and mental properties. The inner world of each person is a whole universe. We have no right to tell people how they should live, speak, dress, etc. We should not try to change them, if their “wrongness”, of course, does not harm the life and health of others. We must accept everyone for who they are, regardless of their gender, religion, political or even sexual affiliation. Everyone has the right to be themselves.

More details about the Aversion project can be found at this link.

Landis experiments

Landis's experiments are also called Spontaneous Facial Expressions and Subordination. A series of these experiments was carried out by psychologist Carini Landis in Minnesota in 1924. The purpose of the experiment was to identify the general patterns of work of facial muscle groups that are responsible for the expression of emotions, as well as to search for facial expressions characteristic of these emotions. The participants in the experiments were students of Landis.

For a more distinct display of facial expressions, special lines were drawn on the faces of the subjects. After that, they were presented with something capable of causing strong emotional experiences. For disgust, students sniffed ammonia, for excitement they watched pornographic pictures, for pleasure they listened to music, and so on. But the latest experiment, in which the subjects had to cut off the head of a rat, caused the widest resonance. And at first, many participants flatly refused to do it, but in the end they did it anyway. The results of the experiment did not reflect any regularity in the expressions of people's faces, but they showed how ready people are to obey the will of authorities and are able, under this pressure, to do what they would never do under normal conditions.

It’s the same in life: when everything is fine and goes as it should, when everything goes on as usual, then we feel confident in ourselves as people, have our own opinion and preserve our individuality. But as soon as someone puts pressure on us, most of us immediately cease to be ourselves. Landis' experiments once again proved that a person easily "bends" under others, ceases to be independent, responsible, reasonable, etc. In fact, no authority can force us to force us to do what we do not want. Especially if it entails causing harm to other living beings. If every person is aware of this, then it is quite likely that this will be able to make our world much more humane and civilized, and life in it - more comfortable and better.

You can learn more about Landis' experiments here.

Little Albert

An experiment called "Little Albert" or " Little Albert"was held in New York in 1920 by psychologist John Watson, who, by the way, is the founder of behaviorism - a special direction in psychology. The experiment was conducted in order to find out how fear is formed on objects that had not caused any fear before.

For the experiment, they took a nine-month-old boy named Albert. For some time he was shown a white rat, a rabbit, cotton wool and other white objects. The boy played with the rat and got used to it. After that, when the boy started playing with the rat again, the doctor would hit the metal with a hammer, causing the boy a very unpleasant feeling. After a certain period of time, Albert began to avoid contact with the rat, and even later, at the sight of a rat, as well as cotton wool, a rabbit, etc. started crying. As a result of the experiment, it was suggested that fears are formed in a person at a very early age and then remain for life. As for Albert, his unreasonable fear of a white rat remained with him for the rest of his life.

The results of the "Little Albert" experiment, firstly, remind us again how important it is to pay attention to any little things in the process of raising a child. Something that seems to us at first glance quite insignificant and overlooked, can in some strange way be reflected in the psyche of the child and develop into some kind of phobia or fear. When raising children, parents should be extremely attentive and observe everything that surrounds them and how they react to it. Secondly, thanks to what we now know, we can identify, understand and work through some of our fears, the cause of which we cannot find. It is quite possible that what we are unreasonably afraid of came to us from our own childhood. And how nice it can be to get rid of some fears that tormented or simply bothered in everyday life?!

You can learn more about the Little Albert experiment here.

Learned (learned) helplessness

It's called learned helplessness. mental condition, in which the individual does absolutely nothing to somehow improve his situation, even having such an opportunity. This state appears mainly after several unsuccessful attempts to influence the negative effects of the environment. As a result, a person refuses any action to change or avoid a harmful environment; the feeling of freedom and faith in one's own strength are lost; depression and apathy appear.

This phenomenon was first discovered in 1966 by two psychologists: Martin Seligman and Steve Mayer. They conducted experiments on dogs. The dogs were divided into three groups. The dogs from the first group sat in the cages for a while and were released. Dogs from the second group were subjected to small electric shocks, but were given the opportunity to turn off the electricity by pressing the lever with their paws. The third group was subjected to the same shocks, but without the possibility of turning it off. After some time, the dogs from the third group were placed in a special aviary, from which it was easy to get out by simply jumping over the wall. In this enclosure, the dogs were also subjected to electric shocks, but they continued to remain in place. This told the scientists that the dogs had developed "learned helplessness" and became confident that they were helpless in the face of the outside world. The scientists then concluded that human psyche behaves like this after several failures. But was it worth it to torture dogs in order to find out what, in principle, we all have known for so long?

Probably, many of us can recall examples of confirmation of what the scientists proved in the above experiment. Every person in life can have a losing streak when it seems that everything and everyone is against you. These are moments when you give up, you want to give up everything, stop wanting something better for yourself and your loved ones. Here you need to be strong, show fortitude of character and fortitude. It is these moments that temper us and make us stronger. Some people say that this is how life tests strength. And if this test is passed steadfastly and with a proudly raised head, then luck will be favorable. But even if you don't believe in such things, just remember that it's not always good or always bad. one always replaces the other. Never lower your head and do not betray your dreams, they, as they say, will not forgive you for this. In difficult moments of life, remember that there is a way out of any situation and you can always “jump over the wall of the enclosure”, and the darkest hour is before dawn.

You can read more about what is learned helplessness and about experiments related to this concept.

Boy raised like a girl

This experiment is one of the most inhuman in history. It, so to speak, was held from 1965 to 2004 in Baltimore (USA). In 1965, a boy named Bruce Reimer was born there, whose penis was damaged during a circumcision procedure. Parents, not knowing what to do, turned to psychologist John Money and he "recommended" them to simply change the sex of the boy and raise him as a girl. The parents followed the "advice", gave permission for the sex change operation and began to raise Bruce as Brenda. In fact, Dr. Mani has long wanted to conduct an experiment to prove that gender is due to upbringing, and not nature. The boy Bruce became his guinea pig.

Despite the fact that Mani noted in his reports that the child is growing up as a full-fledged girl, parents and school teachers It was argued that, on the contrary, the child exhibits all the properties of the boy's character. Both the parents of the child and the child himself experienced extreme stress for many years. A few years later, Bruce-Brenda nevertheless decided to become a man: he changed his name and became David, changed his image and performed several operations to “return” to male physiology. He even got married and adopted his wife's children. But in 2004, after breaking up with his wife, David committed suicide. He was 38 years old.

What can be said about this "experiment" in relation to our daily life? Probably, only that a person is born with a certain set of qualities and predispositions, determined by genetic information. Fortunately, not many people try to make daughters out of their sons or vice versa. But, nevertheless, while raising their child, some parents do not seem to want to notice the peculiarities of the character of their child and his emerging personality. They want to "sculpt" the child, as if from plasticine - to make him the way they themselves want to see him, without taking into account his individuality. And this is unfortunate, because. it is because of this that many people in adulthood feel their unfulfillment, frailty and meaninglessness of being, do not enjoy life. The small finds confirmation in the big, and any influence we have on children will be reflected in their future life. Therefore, it is worth being more attentive to your children and understanding that every person, even the smallest one, has his own path and you need to try with all your might to help him find it.

And some details of the life of David Reimer himself are here at this link.

The experiments considered by us in this article, as you might guess, represent only a small part of the total number ever carried out. But even they show us, on the one hand, how multifaceted and little studied the personality of a person and his psyche. And, on the other hand, what a great interest a person arouses in himself, and how much effort is made so that he can know his nature. Despite the fact that such a noble goal was often achieved by far from noble means, one can only hope that a person has somehow succeeded in his aspiration, and experiments that are harmful to a living being will cease to be carried out. We can say with confidence that it is possible and necessary to study the psyche and personality of a person for many more centuries, but this should be done only on the basis of considerations of humanism and humanity.

Incredible Facts

Flowers of Darwin

Most people are familiar with the activities of Charles Darwin and his famous journey to South America. He made his most important discoveries in the Galapagos Islands, where each of the 20 islands had its own unique set of species, perfectly adapted to living in those conditions. But few people know about Darwin's experiments after he returned to England. Some of them were focused on orchids.

In the process of growing and studying several types of orchids, he realized that the complex orchid flowers are an adaptation that allows the flowers to attract insects, which then transfer the pollen to neighboring plants. Each insect is specifically designed to pollinate one type of orchid. Take, for example, the Star of Bethlehem orchid (Angraecum sesquipedale), which stores nectar at a depth of 30 centimeters. Darwin predicted that there must be an insect that pollinates this type of orchid. Of course, in 1903, scientists discovered a species called the dusky butterfly, which has a long proboscis that can reach the nectar of this species of orchid.

Darwin used the data he collected about orchids and their insect pollinators to strengthen his theory of natural selection. He argued that cross-pollinated orchids are more viable than self-pollinated ones, since self-pollination reduces genetic diversity, which ultimately has a direct impact on the survival of the species. So, three years later, after he first described natural selection In On the Origin of Species, Darwin did some more experiments on colors and solidified his claims about the limits of evolution.

Deciphering DNA

James Watson and Francis Crick came very close to deciphering DNA, but their discoveries are largely dependent on the work of Alfred Hershey and Martha Chase, who in 1952 carried out the famous this day an experiment that helped them determine how DNA molecules are related to heredity. Hershey and Chase were working with a type of virus known as a bacteriophage. This protein-coated virus surrounds the DNA strand, infects the bacterial cell, which programs it to produce new infected cells. The virus then kills the cell and new viruses are born. Hershey and Chase knew this, but they also didn't know which component—protein or DNA—was responsible for what was happening. They didn't know this until they did their ingenious "blender" experiment, which led them to DNA ribonucleic acids.

Since Hershey and Chase's experiment, many scientists such as Rosalind Franklin have focused on studying DNA and its molecular structure. Franklin used a technique called X-ray diffraction to study DNA. It involves the "invasion" of X-rays into the fibers of purified DNA. When rays interact with a molecule, they "go astray" from their original course and become diffracted. The diffracted beams then form a picture of a unique molecule ready for analysis. Franklin's famous photograph shows the X-shaped curve that Watson and Crick called "the signature of the DNA molecule." They were also able to determine the width of the spiral by looking at Franklin's image.

First vaccination

Until the global eradication of smallpox in the late 20th century, the disease was a serious problem. In the 18th century, the disease caused by the smallpox virus killed one in ten children born in Sweden and France. "Catching" the virus was the only possible "treatment". This led to the fact that people themselves tried to catch the virus from festering ulcers. Unfortunately, many of them died in the dangerous attempt to self-vaccinate.

Edward Jenner, a British physician, began studying the virus and developing effective methods treatment. The genesis of his experiments was the observation that milkmaids living in his hometown, were often infected with the vaccinia virus, a non-fatal disease similar to smallpox. Milkmaids who contracted cowpox seemed to be immune from smallpox infection, so in 1796 Jenner decided to test whether a person could develop immunity to smallpox when infected with the cowpox virus. The boy over whom Jenner decided to conduct his experiment was named James Phipps (James Phipps). Jenner cut Phipps' arm and infected him with cowpox. After a while the boy recovered. 48 days later, a doctor injected him with the smallpox virus and found that the boy was immune.

Today, scientists know that vaccinia and smallpox viruses are so similar that the human immune system is unable to tell them apart.

Proof of the existence of the atomic nucleus

Physicist Ernest Rutherford has already won Nobel Prize in 1908 for his radioactive work, while at that time he also began to conduct experiments to reveal the structure of the atom. The experiments were based on his previous research, which showed that radioactivity consists of two types of rays - alpha and beta. Rutherford and Hans Geiger established that alpha rays are streams of positively charged particles. When he fired alpha particles onto the screen, they produced a clear and sharp image. But if a thin sheet of mica was placed between the source of alpha radiation and the screen, then the resulting image was blurry. It was clear that the mica was scattering some alpha particles, but how and why this happened was not clear at the time.

In 1911, a physicist placed a thin sheet of gold foil between an alpha source and a screen, 1-2 atoms thick. He also placed another screen in front of the source of alpha radiation in order to understand which of the particles are deflected back. On a screen behind the foil, Rutherford observed a diffuse pattern similar to that which he saw when using a sheet of mica. What he saw on the screen in front of the foil greatly surprised Rutherford, as several alpha particles bounced straight back. Rutherford concluded that the strong positive charge at the heart of the gold atoms sent the alpha particles back to the source. He called this strong positive charge the "nucleus", and stated that compared to the total size of an atom, its nucleus must be very small, otherwise many more particles would come back. Today, scientists like Rutherford visualize atoms: small, positively charged nuclei surrounded by a large, mostly empty space inhabited by a few electrons.

x-ray

We have already discussed Franklin's X-ray diffraction studies above, but he owes much of his work to Dorothy Crowfoot Hodgkin, one of only three women to win the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. In 1945, Hodgkin was considered one of the world's leading practitioners of X-ray diffraction techniques, so it is not surprising that it was she who, after all, showed the structure of one of today's most important chemical substances in medicine - penicillin. Alexander Fleming discovered the bacteria-killing substance as early as 1928, but it took scientists some more time to purify the substance in order to develop an effective treatment. Thus, with the help of atoms of penicillin, Hodgkin managed to create semi-synthetic derivatives of penicillin, which turned out to be a revolution in the fight against infections.

Hodgkin's research became known as X-ray crystallography. Chemists crystallized the compounds they wanted to analyze for the first time. It was a challenge. After testing penicillin crystals by two different companies, Hodgkin sent X-ray waves through the crystals and allowed the radiation to "penetrate the test object." When the X-rays interacted with the electrons of the object under study, the rays became slightly diffracted. This resulted in a sharp pattern of dots on the film. By analyzing the position and brightness of these dots and performing many calculations, Hodgkin determined exactly how the atoms were arranged in the penicillin molecule.

A few years later, she used the same technology to reveal the structure of vitamin B12. She received the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1964, an honor that no other woman has received.

The emergence of life

In 1929, biochemists John Haldane and Alexander Oparin independently proposed that there was no free oxygen in the Earth's early atmosphere. In those harsh conditions, they assumed organic compounds could be formed from simple molecules, receiving a serious boost of energy, whether it be ultraviolet radiation or bright light. Haldane also added that the oceans were probably the first sources of these organic compounds.

American chemists Harold Urey and Stanley Miller decided to test the hypotheses of Oparin and Haldane in 1953. They were able to recreate the Earth's early atmosphere by carefully working on a controlled, closed system. The role of the ocean was played by a flask with heated water. After the water vapor rose and collected in another container, Yurii and Miller added hydrogen, methane, and ammonia to simulate an oxygen-free atmosphere. Then sparks were formed in the flask, representing light in a mixture of gases. Finally, the condenser cooled the gases in a liquid, which they then took for analysis.

A week later, Yurii and Miller got amazing results: organic compounds were present in abundance in the chilled liquid. In particular, Miller discovered several amino acids, including glycine, alanine, and glutamic acid. Amino acids are the building blocks of proteins, which are themselves key components of both cellular structures and cellular enzymes responsible for the functioning of important chemical reactions. Urey and Miller concluded that organic molecules could well survive in an oxygen-free environment, which, in turn, did not make us wait for the appearance of the simplest organisms.

Creation of light

When light appeared in the 19th century, it remained a mystery that inspired many fascinating experiments. For example, Thomas Young's "double slit experiment" showed how light waves but not particles. But they didn't know then how fast light travels.

In 1878, physicist A.A. Michelson conducted an experiment to calculate the speed of light and prove that it was a finite, measurable quantity. Here's what he did:

1. First, he placed two mirrors far apart on opposite sides of the dam near the university campus, arranging them so that the incident light reflected from one mirror and returned back. He measured the distance between the mirrors and found that it was 605.4029 meters.

3. With the help of lenses, he focused a beam of light on a fixed mirror. When a beam of light touched a fixed mirror, it bounced off and was reflected in a rotating mirror, near which Michelson placed a special screen. Due to the fact that the second mirror rotated, the trajectory of the return of the light beam changed slightly. When Michelson measured these deviations, he came up with a figure of 133 mm.

4. Using the data obtained, he was able to measure the speed of light, equal to 186,380 miles per second (299,949,530 kilometers). The allowable value for the speed of light today is 299,792,458 km per second. Michelson's measurements showed a surprisingly accurate result. Moreover, scientists now have at their disposal more accurate ideas about light and the foundations on which the theory of quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity are built.

Discovery of radiation

1897 was a very important year for Marie Curie. Her first child was born, and just a few weeks after his birth, she went to look for a topic for her doctoral dissertation. Eventually, she decided to study the "uranium rays" first described by Henri Becquerel. Becquerel discovered these rays by accident when he left uranium salts wrapped in an opaque material along with photographic plates in a dark room, and returned to find that the photographic plates were completely illuminated. Marie Curie chose to study these mysterious rays in order to identify other elements that act in a similar way.

Already on early stage Studying Curie realized that thorium produces the same rays as uranium. She began labeling these unique elements as "radioactive" and quickly realized that the strength of the radiation produced by uranium and thorium depended on the amount of thorium and uranium. In the end, she will be able to prove that the rays are the properties of the atoms of a radioactive element. In itself, this was a revolutionary discovery, but Curie stopped it.

She discovered that pitchblende (uraninite) is more radioactive than uranium, which led her to the idea that there must be an element unknown to her in natural minerals. Her husband Pierre joined the research, and they systematically reduced pitchblende until a new isolated element was found. They named it polonium, after Mary's homeland of Poland. Shortly thereafter, they discovered another radioactive element, which they called radium, from the Latin for "ray." Curie has won two Nobel Prizes for her work.

dog days

Did you know that Ivan Pavlov, a Russian physiologist and chemist, and the author of an experiment to salivate and condition dogs in dogs, was not at all interested in psychology or behavior? He was interested in the topics of digestion and circulation. In fact, he was studying the digestive system of dogs when he discovered what we know today as "conditioned reflexes."

In particular, he tried to understand the relationship between salivation and the work of the stomach. Shortly before this, Pavlov had already noted that the stomach does not begin to digest food without salivation, which occurs first. In other words, reflexes in the autonomic nervous system closely related to each other these two processes. Next, Pavlov decided to find out if external stimuli could affect digestion in a similar way. To test this, he started turning the lights on and off while the dog was eating, ticking the metronome, and making the buzzer sound audible. In the absence of these stimuli, dogs only salivated when they saw and ate food. But after some time, they began to salivate when stimulated by sound and light, even if they were not given food at that time. Pavlov also found that this type of conditioned reflex dies if the stimulus is "misused" too often. For example, if a dog hears a sound signal often, but does not receive food, then after a while, it stops responding to the sound by salivation.

Pavlov published his results in 1903. A year later, he received the Nobel Prize in Medicine, not for his work on conditioned reflexes, but "in recognition of his work on the physiology of digestion, through which knowledge of vital aspects has been transformed and expanded."

Stanley Milgram's experiments in the 1960s still rank among the most famous and controversial to this day. scientific experiments. Milgram wanted to find out how far an ordinary person could go in inflicting pain on another person under the pressure of authority. Here's what he did:

1. Milgram recruited volunteers, ordinary people who were ordered to inflict some pain on other volunteer actors. The experimenter played the role of an authority figure who was constantly present in the room during the study.

2. Before the start of each test, the authority demonstrated to unsuspecting volunteers how to use a shock - an apparatus that could hit a person with a discharge of 15-450 volts (increased level of danger).

3. The scientist went on to say that they should test how the shock can improve the memory of words through associations. He instructed the volunteers during the experiment to "reward" the volunteer actors with shock blows for incorrect answers. The more wrong answers, the higher the voltage level on the device. Moreover, it is worth noting that the device was made on highest level: over each switch was written the corresponding voltage, from "weak shock" to "hard to bear shock", the device was equipped with many panels with pointer voltmeters. That is, the subjects did not have the opportunity to doubt the authenticity of the experiment, and the study was structured in such a way that for each correct answer there were three erroneous ones and the authority told the volunteer with what "blow" to punish the "incapable student."

4. "Students" screamed when they received shock blows. After the force of the blow exceeded 150 volts, they demanded release. At the same time, the authority urged the volunteers to continue the experiment, not paying attention to the demands of the "students".

5. Some of the participants in the experiment were willing to leave after reaching the 150 volt punishment, but most continued until they reached the maximum shock level of 450 volts.

At the end of the experiments, many spoke out about the unethical nature of this study, but the results were impressive. Milgram proved that ordinary people can hurt an innocent person simply because they received such a command from a powerful authority.

Psychology is famous for its unusual and sometimes monstrous experiments. This is not physics, where you need to roll balls on the table, and not biology with its microscopes and cells. Here the objects of research are dogs, monkeys and people. Paul Kleinman described the most famous and controversial experiments in his new work "Psychology". AiF.ru publishes the most notable experiments described in the book.

prison experiment

Philip Zimbardo conducted a curious experiment, which is called the Stanford Prison Experiment. Scheduled for two weeks, it was terminated after 6 days. The psychologist wanted to understand what happens when a person's individuality and dignity are taken away - as happens in prison.

Zimbardo hired 24 men, whom he divided into two equal groups and distributed the roles - prisoners and guards, and he himself became the "head of the prison." The entourage was appropriate: the guards walked in uniforms, and each had a club, but the “criminals”, as befits people in this position, were dressed in poor overalls, they were not given underwear, and an iron chain was tied to their leg - as a reminder about the prison. There was no furniture in the cells, only mattresses. The food wasn't outstanding either. In general, everything is real.

The prisoners were kept in cells designed for three people around the clock. The guards could go home at night and generally do whatever they wanted with the prisoners (except for corporal punishment).

The very next day after the start of the experiment, the prisoners barricaded the door in one of the cells, and the guards poured foam on them from a fire extinguisher. A little later, a VIP cell was created for those who behaved well. Very soon, the guards began to have fun: they forced the prisoners to do push-ups, strip naked and clean the latrines with their hands. As punishment for rebellions (which, by the way, the prisoners regularly organized), mattresses were taken away from them. Later, a normal toilet became a privilege: those who rebelled were not allowed out of the cell - they only brought a bucket.

Approximately 30% of the guards showed sadistic tendencies. Interestingly, the prisoners also got used to their role. At first they were promised to give 15 dollars daily. However, even after Zimbardo announced that he would not pay the money, no one expressed a desire to go free. People voluntarily decided to continue!

On the seventh day, a graduate student visited the prison: she was going to conduct a survey among the experimental subjects. The picture simply shocked the girl - she was shocked by what she saw. Looking at the reaction stranger, Zimbardo realized that things had gone too far, and decided to stop the experiment ahead of schedule. The American Psychological Association strictly forbade it ever being repeated on ethical grounds. The ban is still in effect.

invisible gorilla

Perceptual blindness is a phenomenon when a person is so overloaded with impressions that he does not notice anything around him. Attention is completely absorbed by only one object. All of us suffer from this kind of visual blindness from time to time.

Daniel Simons showed the subjects a video where people dressed in black and white T-shirts threw a ball to each other. The task was simple - to count the number of throws. While two groups of people were tossing the ball, a man dressed in a gorilla costume appeared in the center of the sports ground: he pounded his chest with his fists, just like a real monkey, and then quietly left the field.

After watching the video, the participants in the experiment were asked if they noticed anything strange on the site. And as many as 50% answered in the negative: half simply did not see a huge gorilla! This is explained not only by the focus on the game, but also by the fact that we are not ready to see something incomprehensible and unexpected in everyday life.

Killer teachers

Stanley Milgram known for his outrageous hair-raising experiment. He decided to study how and why people obey authority. The psychologist was prompted by the trial of a Nazi criminal Adolf Eichmann. Eichmann was accused of having ordered the extermination of millions of Jews during World War II. Lawyers built a defense based on the claim that he was just a military man and obeyed the orders of commanders.

Milgram advertised in the newspaper and found 40 volunteers ostensibly to study memory and learning abilities. Everyone was told that someone would be the teacher and someone would be the student. And they even held a draw so that people would take what was happening at face value. In fact, everyone got a piece of paper with the word "teacher" on it. In each pair of experimental subjects, the "student" was an actor who acted in concert with the psychologist.

So, what was this shocking experiment?

1. The “student”, whose task was to memorize the words, was tied to a chair and electrodes were connected to the body, after which the “teachers” were asked to go to another room.

2. There was an electric current generator in the "teacher's" room. As soon as the “student” made a mistake while memorizing new words, he had to be punished with a current discharge. The process began with a small discharge of 30 volts, but each time it increased by 15 volts. The maximum point is 450 volts.

So that the "teacher" does not doubt the purity of the experiment, they beat him with an electric shock with a voltage of 30 volts - quite noticeably. And that's the only real one.

3. Then the fun begins. The "student" remembers the words, but soon makes mistakes. Naturally, the experimental "teacher" punishes him, as it should be according to the instructions. With a discharge of 75 volts (of course, fake), the actor groans, then squeals and begs to untie him from the chair. Each time the current increases, the screams only get louder. The actor even complains of pain in the heart!

4. Of course, people were scared and wondered if it was worth continuing. Then they were clearly told not to stop in any case. And the people obeyed. Although some trembled and laughed nervously, many did not dare to disobey.

5. At around 300 volts, the actor furiously pounded the wall with his fists and shouted that he was in a lot of pain and that he could not bear this pain; at 330 volts it was completely quiet. Meanwhile, the “teacher” was told: since the “student” is silent, this is the same as the wrong answer. So, the quiet "student" must be shocked again.

7. The experiment ended when the "teacher" chose the maximum discharge of 450 volts.

The conclusions were terrible: 65% of the participants reached highest point and "draconian" figures of 450 volts - they applied a discharge of such force to a living person! And these are ordinary, “normal” people. But under the pressure of authority, they subjected those around them to suffering.

Milgram's experiment is still criticized for being unethical. After all, the participants did not know that everything was for fun, and experienced serious stress. No matter how you look at it, causing pain to another person turns into a psychological trauma for life.

Heinz dilemma

Psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg studied moral development. He believed that this is a process that continues throughout life. To confirm his guesses, Kohlberg offered children of different ages complex moral dilemmas.

The psychologist told the children a story about a woman who was dying - she was being killed by cancer. And then, by a lucky chance, one pharmacist allegedly invented a medicine that could help her. However, he asked for a huge price - $ 2,000 per dose (although the cost of manufacturing the drug was only $ 200). The woman's husband—his name was Heinz—borrowed money from friends and raised only half the amount, $1,000.

Arriving at the pharmacist, Heinz asked him to sell the medicine for his dying wife cheaper, or at least on credit. However, he replied, “No! I created a cure and I want to get rich.” Heinz fell into despair. What was to be done? That same night, he secretly entered the pharmacy and stole the medicine. Did Heinz do well?

Such is the dilemma. Interestingly, Kohlberg did not study the answers to the question, but the reasoning of children. As a result, he singled out several stages in the development of morality: starting from the stage when the rules are perceived as absolute truth, and ending with the observance of one's own moral principles - even if they run counter to the laws of society.

For whom the Bell Tolls

Many people know that Ivan Pavlov studied reflexes. But few people know that he was interested in the cardiovascular system and digestion, and he also knew how to quickly and without anesthesia insert a catheter in dogs in order to track how emotions and drugs affect blood pressure (and whether they affect at all).

Pavlov's famous experiment, when researchers developed new reflexes in dogs, became a grandiose discovery in psychology. Oddly enough, it was he who largely helped to explain why a person develops panic disorders, anxiety, fears and psychoses (acute states with hallucinations, delusions, depression, inadequate reactions and confused consciousness).

So how did Pavlov's experiment with dogs go?

1. The scientist noticed that food (an unconditioned stimulus) causes a natural reflex in dogs in the form of saliva. As soon as the dog sees the food, it starts to salivate. But the sound of the metronome is a neutral stimulus, it does not cause anything.

2. Dogs were given a lot of time to listen to the sound of the metronome (which, as we remember, was a neutral stimulus). After that, the animals were fed immediately (they used the unconditioned stimulus).

3. After a while, they began to associate the sound of the metronome with eating.

4. The last phase is the formed conditioned reflex. The sound of the metronome was always salivating. And it doesn’t matter if the dogs were given food after it or not. It just became part of the conditioned reflex.

Drawing from the book "Psychology" by Paul Kleinman. Publishing house "Mann, Ivanov and Ferber".

Excerpts courtesy of Mann, Ivanov & Ferber

Background of the experiment

Winthrop Kellogg - American psychologist (1898-1972), who gained fame as an odious experimenter. The fact is that he conducted experiments in the field of comparative psychology of primates, and more specifically, Kellogg tried to raise a chimpanzee as a person in a normal average family.

Winthrop Kellogg and Gua (1931)

The idea came to him while studying at Columbia, when Kellogg encountered journalistic articles about "wolf children" in India. Most of all, Winthrop was interested in the fact that the “Mowglis” returned to the bosom of civilization could not fully socialize and often showed the habits of their “parents”.

However, the researcher believed that these children are born with normal intellectual abilities, as they perfectly adapt to the conditions around them. Winthrop Kellogg believed that the main problem in the socialization of children raised by wild animals was not their fundamental underdevelopment, but the exceptional influence of early experience and the existence of a special, critical mental experience experienced in infancy and childhood.

Inspired by the stories of Mowgli children, Winthrop Kellogg decides to test the theses he formulated in the article “Humanizing of ape”. The article itself was published in Psychological Review #38. The psychologist was interested in "the relative influence of nature and nurture on behavior."

By virtue of the fact that to conduct an experiment in which the subject would be a child would mean to violate those few ethical standards that existed in the scientific and psychological environment of that time, they decided to abandon this option:

“A human infant with normal intelligence will be placed in a wild environment and [will be observed] ... for its development in this environment”

So Kellogg and his wife Luella created an experimental design in which the conditions of upbringing would be reversed. That is, a wild animal would be placed in a human social environment and brought up in it. A similar experiment had already been done a year before the Kelloggs Carlisle Jacobsen (1930), but the results were negative.

In addition, Winthrop Kellogg criticized the failed experiment. The scientist argued this as follows: Carlisle chose a one-year-old chimpanzee, who, moreover, lived in a zoo for some time, which means that he had an attitude towards people as owners, and towards himself as an animal. In contrast, Winthrop formulated the key position of his project as follows:

"Creating an atmosphere in which the animal was always perceived as a person, and never as a pet."

In the end, it was decided to raise the monkey in a home environment, along with their nine-month-old baby, baby Donald. The original plan of the experiment was to move to West Africa, but the banal lack of funds almost destroyed the prospect of research. The Kelloggs were saved by Robert Yerkes, from whom Winthrop took care of the seven-month-old female chimpanzee Gua in 1931.

Experiment progress

Donald and Gua were brought up on an equal footing, without making a difference between them. Both of them were dressed, put on a highchair, during meals, spoon-fed, washed and taught. Not surprisingly, the chimpanzee and the child quickly bonded and became inseparable.

Gua and Donald in anticipation of tests for speed of reaction.

A few months later, Winthrop and Luella began tests of intelligence, quickness of reaction, and the ability to determine the direction of the sound. One of the tests looked like this: they hung cookies on a thread in the middle of the room, and Donald and Gua were given sticks, watching who figured out how to get a treat faster.

In another test, the chimpanzee and the baby were blindfolded and called by name. Both subjects were given the same items (a spoon, pencils and paper, like a bicycle) and compared the speed of mastering the items. There were several reaction tests: loud noise, for a long exposure (the child and the chimpanzee were twisted on a chair around its axis for a long time), for a delayed reaction (mom or dad hid behind a screen, and the experimental subjects had to follow them).

Gua showed great ingenuity in everything related to mobility and ways of obtaining food, while Donald mastered the objects familiar to us at times: a spoon, a plate, pencils and paper.

In total, the monkey and the human cub spent 9 months together: the experiment began in 1931, and ended on March 28, 1932. It was assumed that the experiment would last 5 years. From the above, it is not difficult to guess that the study was not completed, because the Kelloggs failed to make a person out of a chimpanzee. Their biggest successes are teaching the Gua upright posture and the use of a spoon while eating. The chimpanzee understood human speech a little, but she herself could not speak, even the most simple words. The monkey could not even master such a simple human game as "patties", unlike Donald. And yet, why was the experiment interrupted so early?

The fact is that Winthrop and Luella were frightened by the lag in the development of their son Donald. At 19 months, the boy knew and used only three words, begging for food, hooting and imitating the barking of monkeys. The boy began to imitate his "sister" too much, and the Kelloggs ended the experiment. It cannot be said that Winthrop Kellogg's hypothesis about the influence of the natural environment and education on the formation of behavioral patterns has been completely refuted, but it is obvious that the general educational environment is not enough to direct mental development in the right direction.

Unfortunately, Donald's fate remains unknown, while a little more is known about Gua. The life of the test subject was tragic: she was returned to the primate research center, where she died a few years later. More such experiments were not carried out.

Criticism

Surprisingly, Winthrop Kellogg's rather strange experiment was relatively favorably received in the scientific community. Although such loyalty can be easily explained by the trends in American psychological science at the beginning of the 20th century, radical behaviorism and scientific positivism were bearing fruit. In an article in Time (Baby & Ape), the researcher wrote:

“The Gua, perceived as a human child, behaved like a human child, except when her body and brain interfered with her. The experiment has been terminated."

In the end, the materials of the experiment formed the basis of Kellogg's book "The Ape and The Child", published in 1933. However, there was also criticism. So several psychologists expressed disapproval due to the fact that an infant was chosen as the object of research. It seemed unethical to them. Others criticized Kellogg for weaning the chimpanzee from its mother and animal society, which automatically made Gua's life extremely difficult, even in a research facility.

conclusions

It seems that the attempt to humanize animals, even primates related to us, cannot be crowned with success. The impact of the environment, which the Winthrops hoped for, was not strong enough, while communication with a piece of wildlife negatively affected their son.

Donald and Gua playing ball (late 1931).

If you look at the results of the study from the position of Kellogg, then everything looks a little different. The study showed the limits of the influence of heredity, independent of the environment, and made it possible to identify the benefits mental development, due to the enriched environment.

As stated above, Gua never lived up to Kellogg's expectations of human language acquisition, as she was unable to imitate human speech. On the contrary, the same cannot be said of Donald, who imitated some of the Gua sounds, which says

It seems that such an experiment should once again convince the scientific community of the failure of the superstructure, in the form of a highly organized and overcomplicated society, but this does not happen. So, a special case of unsuccessful researchers.

However, everything is as usual, someone may not like it.

1. W.N. Kellogg - "Humanizing the ape" (1931).

2. W.N. Kellogg - "Babe & Ape" (Time, 1933).

To give answers to strange human questions and solve global problems, and sociologists had to carry out social experiments, some of which were so unethical that they would have shocked even animal advocates, who tend to despise humans. But without this knowledge, we would never have understood this strange society.

halo effect

Or, as it is also called, the “halo effect” is a classic experiment social psychology. Its whole essence is that global assessments about a person (for example, whether he is handsome or not) are transferred to judgments about their specific features (if handsome, then smart). Simply put, a person uses only the first impression or memorable trait in assessing individuality. Hollywood stars perfectly demonstrate the halo effect. After all, for some reason it seems to us that such nice people cannot be idiots. But alas, in reality they are little smarter than a tame toad. Remember when only people with an attractive appearance seemed good, for which many did not really like the elderly and the artist Alexander Bashirov. Essentially, it's the same.

The cognitive dissonance

Festinger and Carlsmith's pioneering socio-psychological experiment in 1959 produced a phrase that many people still don't understand. This is best illustrated by an incident in 1929 with the surrealist artist René Magritte, who presented the public with a realistic image of a smoking pipe with a signature on a good, fit French"It's not a pipe." That awkward feeling when you seriously wonder which of the two of you is the idiot is cognitive dissonance.

Theoretically, dissonance should cause a desire to either change ideas and knowledge in accordance with reality (that is, stimulate the process of cognition), or double-check the incoming information for its authenticity (a friend, of course, is joking, and his ultimate goal is to see your distorted, like Ron's Weasley, give birth). In fact, a variety of concepts coexist quite comfortably in the human brain. Because people are stupid. The same Magritte, who gave the painting the name "Insidiousness of the Image", was faced with an uncomprehending crowd and critics who demanded a change in name.

Robber's Cave

In 1954, the Turkish psychologist Muzafer Sherif set up the “Robbers' Cave” experiment, during which it came to the point that the children were ready to kill each other.

A group of 10-12 year old boys from good Protestant families were sent to a summer camp run by psychologists. The boys were divided into two separate groups that only met together during sporting events or other events.

The experimenters provoked an increase in tension between the two groups, in part by keeping the competition score close in points. The sheriff then created problems like a lack of water, which required both teams to come together and work together in order to reach the goal. Of course, the common work rallied the guys.

In Sheriff's opinion, informing about the opposing side in a positive light, encouraging informal, "human" contacts between members of conflicting groups, and constructive negotiations between leaders should help reduce tension between any groups. However, none of these conditions can be effective on its own. Positive information about the "enemy" is most often not taken into account, informal contacts easily turn into the same conflict, and the mutual compliance of leaders is regarded by their supporters as a sign of weakness.

Stanford Prison Experiment

An experiment that inspired two films and a novel. It was conducted to explain the conflicts in the US Corrections and Marine Corps, and at the same time to study the behavior of the group and the importance of roles in it. The researchers selected a group of 24 male students who were considered healthy, both physically and mentally. These people signed up to participate in a "psychological study of prison life" for which they were paid $15 a day. Half of them were randomly selected to become prisoners, while the other half were assigned to the roles of prison guards. The experiment was played out in the basement of the psychology department at Stanford University, where they even created a makeshift prison for this purpose.

The prisoners were given standard instructions for prison life, which included maintaining order and wearing uniforms. For greater realism, the experimenters even carried out impromptu arrests in the homes of the subjects. The guards, on the other hand, were never supposed to resort to violence against the prisoners, but they needed to control the order. The first day passed without incident, but the prisoners revolted on the second day, barricading themselves in their cells and ignoring the guards. This behavior pissed off the guards, and they began to separate the "good" prisoners from the "bad" ones and even began to punish the prisoners, including public humiliation. Within just a few days, the guards began to show sadistic tendencies, and the prisoners became depressed and showed signs of severe stress.

Stanley Milgram's obedience experiment

Do not tell your sadistic boss about this experiment, because in his experiment Milgram was trying to clarify the question: how much suffering are ordinary people willing to inflict on other, completely innocent people, if such infliction of pain is part of their job duties? In fact, this explained the huge number of victims of the Holocaust.

Milgram suggested that people are naturally inclined to obey authority figures, and set up an experiment that was presented as a study of the effect of pain on memory. Each challenge was divided into the roles of "teacher" and "student", who was an actor, so that only one person was a real participant. The whole experiment was designed in such a way that the invited participant always got the role of "teacher". Both were in separate rooms, and the "teacher" was given instructions. He had to press a button to shock the "student" every time he gave the wrong answer. Each subsequent wrong answer led to an increase in tension. In the end, the actor began to complain of pain, accompanied by a cry.

Milgram found that most of the participants were simply following orders while continuing to hurt the "student". If the subject showed hesitation, then the experimenter required the continuation of one of the predetermined phrases: "Please continue"; "The experiment requires you to continue"; "It's absolutely essential that you continue"; "You have no other choice, you must continue." What is most interesting: if the current had really been conducted to the students, then they simply would not have survived.

False consensus effect

People tend to believe that everyone else thinks exactly like themselves, which gives the impression of a non-existent consensus. Too many people believe that their own opinions, beliefs and passions are much more common in society than they really are.

The false consensus effect has been studied by three psychologists: Ross, Green, and House. In one, they asked participants to read a message about a conflict that had two ways to resolve it.

Then the participants had to say which of the two options they themselves would choose and which option the majority would choose, as well as characterize the people who would choose one or the other option.

The researchers found that no matter which option the participants chose, they tended to assume that most people would also choose that one. In addition, it turned out that people tend to give negative descriptions to people who choose an alternative.

Social identity theory

The behavior of people in groups is an extremely fascinating process. As soon as people get together in groups, they begin to do strange things: copy the behavior of other members of the group, look for a leader to fight other groups, and some put together their own groups and begin to fight for supremacy.

The authors of the experiment locked people in a room one by one and in a group, and then they let out smoke. Ironically, one participant reported smoke much faster than the group. The decision was influenced environment(if the place is familiar - the probability of help is higher), doubt whether the victim needs help or is everything in order with him, and the presence of others within the radius of the crime.

social identity

People are born conformists: we dress alike and often copy each other's behavior without a second thought. But how far is a person willing to go? Isn't he afraid of losing his own "I"?

This is what Solomon Ash tried to find out. The participants of the experiment were seated in the audience. They were shown two cards in order: the first shows one vertical line, the second shows three, only one of which is the same length as the line on the first card. The students' task is quite simple - it is necessary to answer the question which of the three lines on the second card has the same length as the line shown on the first card.

The student had to look through 18 pairs of cards and, accordingly, answer 18 questions, and each time he answered last in the group. But the participant was in a group of actors who first gave the correct answer, and then began to give obviously wrong answers. Ash wanted to test whether the participant would match them and also give the wrong answer, or would answer correctly, accepting the fact that he would be the only one who answered the question differently.

Thirty-seven of the fifty participants agreed with the group's incorrect answer, despite physical evidence to the contrary. Asch cheated in this experiment without obtaining the informed consent of his participants, so these studies cannot be replicated today.