May 20, 2012 13:03
The conclusion that the majority of obedience is, of course, sadly. As a consolation we can present the results of an experiment conducted classic French social psychology, Serge Moscovici.
Conditions of the experiment resembled Ash: I had to say what color colored card. But this time the "decoy" were only two of six. And this couple was genuine dissidents. Rather obvious they persistently called blue green, etc.
While dissenters were in the minority, they were able to move the view around. After a series of experiments led Moscovici factors that determine the success of dissidents in society. For example, a very important confidence and persistence of expression.
Minority has a better chance of winning if his opinion on all other matters disagrees with the majority, and costs only one particular item (for example, when dissidents in full agreement with the team on the squares and triangles, but stubbornly stand in their discussions with ovals ).
In addition, it is important to win over at least one representative of the majority. In some experiments, it was found that as soon as the defectors, followed immediately pulled all the others, causing an avalanche effect.
The first experiments Moscovici time passed in 1969. Just finished student revolution in France, Germany and some other countries. Began another surge in the struggle for women's rights, the environment, and other interesting things. It's time to analyze the effect of the minority.
Moral of the minority can win. We would now like democracy, a republic, a market economy, women have equal rights with men … But once it was all very questionable ideas preached by only a handful of outsiders.
Where this can be encountered in any public debate — on the level of the department to the entire
population. So if you were in the minority — do not be shy, you have a chance to win. At the very least, the science on your side.
Cheap labor favorite
In the experiment, the American psychologist Leon Festinger subjects two o'clock doing senseless work — laid out the coil on the tray, and then poured them into the box. When this Sisyphean project came to an end, Festinger asked the participants to get to the other experimental subjects were waiting outside the door, and tell them what was useful and interesting to this work. That it is done offering a reward. In some cases, $ 1, in the other — 20.
Two weeks later, the subjects were asked how they actually like this stupid job. It turned out that one dollar received enthusiasm was much higher. They told how the unfolding coil develops motor skills of hands, helping to focus, and it's a hell of an enjoyable and useful exercise. Festinger explained the results in that person always requires justification of its actions. For $ 20 you can still tell a lie, but for one to lie somehow demeaning and had to convince myself that it was not exactly a lie.
Time in 1959. During this period, many have realized that direct material benefit — it's not all that affects the actions and beliefs of the person.
Morale Leon Festinger famous for his theory of cognitive dissonance. Roughly speaking, in the mind of man is a set of conflicting knowledge, "this work is boring," "I am an honest man," "I said that this work is interesting," "I got for this lie very little reward." To resolve the conflict, you need something in this set to change. For example, replace "this work is boring" to "this work seemed fun," and then the contents of the skull back to a state of harmony.
Where this can be encountered in any activity on the verge of leisure and work. If everyone for blogging or going to the gym would be paid regular salary, many of these studies would have seemed much less exciting.
Observers excite us
American psychologist Norman Triplett had a habit in the morning for a walk in the park. One day he noticed that the passing cyclists rode faster when there were many people, and slower when the park was deserted. "It turns out that the presence of other people's behavior changes …" — thought Triplett and decided to test it experimentally.
He offered tested volunteers wind line onto the reel spinning. In one case, it had to be done in an empty room in the other — there were people around. It was found that in a group spinning reel better. Hypothesis seems to be confirmed.
But it is not so simple. Other social psychologists have undertaken to repeat this experiment, giving the subjects a variety of tasks — to put on clothes, solve problems, memorize words. The results have been conflicting. Sometimes the presence of other people's work easier, and sometimes — quite the contrary. Psychologists have scratched their heads and frowned.
The answer was found only a few decades later. Robert Zajonc suggested that the presence of witnesses increases arousal and helps people perform simple actions, such as wearing a shirt or build associations at the level of "poet — Pushkin, fruit — an apple." In the language of psychology, this is called — "the dominant reaction." If we are talking about complex creative tasks, such as a mathematical equation to solve unusual or compose a poetic ode in honor of the anniversary of the president, the presence of others significantly worse results. Zajonc hypothesis confirmed the results of nearly 300 studies involving more than 25,000 volunteers.
While Norman Triplett forced volunteers wind up the line in the end of XIX century. The phrase "social psychology" was not yet in vogue. But this particular experiment is the first "true" social-psychological research. And experiments to validate his / refutation lasted more than half a century later.
The moral of our psychology changes very presence of other people. By the way, this effect works even when there is actually no one, and we only imagine the presence of observers.
Where this can be encountered anywhere Yes. During the day we find ourselves alternately then in a group, alone. And, for example, in most offices love to put dozens (if not hundreds) of employees in the huge open room, where everyone on everyone's mind. Maximum isolation — transparent walls. So, probably, to be achieved teambuilding. Obviously, the director of these companies are not very interested in the creative work of their subordinates.
Psychology stronger labor organization
This was in the days when all of America was fond of scientific organization of labor. Invited a group of psychologists at the "Western Electric" in Hawthorne. As guinea pigs they were allocated a team pickers. And psychologists have begun to experiment.
Increasing the lighting in the shop — productivity increased.
Allowed to make more smoke breaks — productivity increased.
Took a break for lunch longer — increased productivity …
Any reform led to the fact that young ladies have worked better. Even when psychologists began to introduce reverse changes — to reduce the lighting, take a break at least, to reduce the time for lunch and so on — the performance has continued to grow.
Scientists are still arguing about why it happened. Likely to affect workers fact the experiment: they have identified a special group, with them more closely communicated bosses, their results were followed by all factory.
Time experiments at the plant in Hawthorne lasted from 1924 to 1936. But first the tone was set by representatives of "school of labor organization" based engineer Frederick Taylor. But when their investigation stalled, had to call in psychology and anthropology.
Morale Psychology can affect productivity is much stronger than the conditions in the workplace and the organization of production. After Hawthorne experiments aroused public interest in the psychology of management. Course on "human relations" is now taught in all business schools. True, it seems that many of our commanders on the subject was a triple-minus.
Where this may be encountered in the first place — at work. Sometimes the phrase: "From you the entire success of our cause" greater influence on performance than, say, a production site of the new tricked out computer.
Obey to the last circuit breaker
Imagine a respectable American, volunteered to participate in the study of the mechanisms of memory. Solid psychologist in a white coat shows him the instrument panel which has 30 switch. Above each hangs birochki indicating the level of the category — from 15 to 450 volts (on the label — a meaningful XXX).
Pulling the switches, participant of the experiment is punishing electric shock sitting behind the glass of another subject — "student" — whenever that accurately repeats just read the phrase. After each error, the "teacher" pushes more powerful lever. When the discharge reaches a few hundred volts, "student" screaming that he bad heart and was not good …
"Teacher" is confused.
— Maybe we should stop — he says to the organizer of the experiment.
— These are our terms. Go on — with a straight face meets psychologist.
"Master" continues. Each time, the cries become more desperate.
210 volts, "Oh! Let me out! I've had enough! I do not want to participate in your experiment! "
225 volts, "Oh!"
270 volts, "Let me out! Let me out of here! Let me out! Let me out of here! Did not you hear? Let me out! "
330 volts — loud cries earn standing agonizing man, "Let me out of here! Let me out! I have a heart attack! I ask you! (Istericheski.) Yes, the same release me! You have no right to keep me here! Let me out! Let me out! Let me out! Let me out! "
345 Volt: silence.
360 Volt: silence …
It looked like a classic experience of the American psychologist Stanley Milgram conducted in mid 60? X. Of course, no electric discharge was not an actor, "student" portrayed writhing and screaming published recorder. However, the "teachers" believe that everything that happens is real.
Before the experiment, Milgram was interested in at a friend's, sociologists, psychiatrists, how many people come to the limit? Most of the experts say: one of the hundreds, and he will be with mental disabilities.
In fact, 63% of the voluntary "teachers" pulled the last switch. It was found that two-thirds of respectable American citizens are willing to send to the world an innocent person just because someone told them to do it.
One should not think that the subjects were pathological sadists: to participate in the experiment were selected quite respectable citizens, without any psychological abnormalities. And their behavior can not be attributed to the national characteristics of Americans — Milgram experiment was repeated many times in many different countries (Australia, Jordan, Spain, Germany). The results were about the same.
Time in 1963. Milgram's experiments, many associated with the trial of Adolf Eichmann, who completed the year before. Recall that Eichmann was one of the main organizers of the extermination of Jews in Nazi Germany. When he appeared before the court in Israel, his main argument was: "I am not guilty, I just follow orders." It seems that if the Milgram conducted his experiments in our time, it would be more appropriate analogy with the case Ulman — the commander of special forces, to shoot Chechen civilians. At trial, he insisted: "We're just following orders."
Commenting on the morality of his experiment, Milgram said grimly: "If the U.S. was a system modeled on the camps of Nazi Germany, suitable staff for them would be to type in any American town of medium size." Unfortunately, we can add that with equal probability, this town may be Chinese, French or Russian.
Where this may be encountered Hopefully, anywhere. However, judging by the results of experiments, no society is immune from the transition to a monstrous violence. And this transition is easier than we think.
Foot in the door
Imagine that you live in your own home in any
a small town. And then comes to you a community activist and offers to install in your yard rather ugly poster: "Be careful on the roads!". It is quite logical that 83% of law-abiding citizens have responded by politely (or not) a failure.
Another group of subjects were asked to first provide a favor — to sign a petition calling for caution on the roads. Sign — is simple enough. And agreed to this request almost everything. When two weeks for them requested to install a poster on the site, refused to only 24%. That is, you have completed the request to increase the burdensome consent almost four times. This effect is known as "foot-in-the-door."
Time in 1966. Advertising has become a huge industry. But science has not been clear to all the psychological subtleties vparivaniya ideas or products.
Having morality of human feeling of involvement in a particular action, it is easier to demand of him more and more victims.
Where this may be encountered first, we are asked to do something very simple (to sign, vote, come to the rally.) Then we propose to do something more meaningful, and we half-consciously argue: "Since I signed — so I support it (the president, the firm part), because I am a free and thoughtful citizen. So, I have to be consistent in their support, even if it contradicts something (conscience, common sense and safety of your purse). "
Pressure groups can deceive vision
This experiment is very fond of play in schools and universities around the world. Good to do this quite a bit: just two cartons, one of which shows three lines, on the other — one. From the test required to say which of the three lines drawn together, equal in length to a line drawn separately. A simple task.
But … Before you give quite obvious answer, the subject has to listen to the answers his five colleagues. And they are all as one name is the wrong option. What should I do? On the one hand, no one requires all the answers match, and the eyes can see clearly the right one. On the other hand … well, at least a third of the subjects showing conformity and he calls the wrong version, which offer the rest of the study. Incidentally, they are not the subjects and confederates of the experimenter.
This result astounded even the organizers of the experiment — Solomon Ashe. It was he was sure that the citizens of the U.S., brought up in the spirit of individualism, should not succumb to pressure groups. But human nature was stronger tradition of freethinking.
The fact that a person is subject to pressure groups, not the new. An interesting modification of the experiment. For example, in one version was a "decoy" subject, who called the wrong option, different from others (eg, the right answer "second line", the four members say "third", and one — the "first"). When the "decoy" the group lost its unity, "naive" subjects gave more correct answers.
Time experimental results were published in 1951. Recently ended World War II, American society is in euphoria: we defeated totalitarian fascism, our people are free and independent, we have this can never be! .. Ash experiment was a blow to this self-confidence.
Morality is a consensus — a dangerous thing. In order to perceive reality in the society must be dissidents, it does not really matter if they speak the truth, or are entirely nonsense — most importantly, that their opinion differs from that of the majority.
Where this may be encountered when assessing world events, the choice of books in the store, in voting, when buying a new mobile phone …
Good Samaritan not in a hurry
The idea of this experiment, John Darley and Daniel Bateson prompted the biblical parable of the Good Samaritan, in which the priest and the Levite (both very important and busy people) go on the road past the wounded stranger, leaving the care of the modest (and presumably less busy) Samaritan.
Thus, students are preparing seminary deliver his first sermon in his life. To do this, they need to enter the building, located a few blocks away. One group of seminarians farewell speech with the words: "You're late, you have been waiting a few minutes, so you better hurry up," while another said: "We have in stock some time, but nothing will happen if you come early."
On the way, the seminarians will come across a person who reclines on the side, a little moaning and coughing. Of those who were encouraged to hurry, only 10% came to the aid of accident (which, of course, was an accomplice of psychologists). And among the seminarians, who felt that the time they have in abundance, the figure was 63%.
Such a small detail, as presence or absence of time, change the level of responsiveness to 6 times as much and was stronger than the moral and religious education of quality.
By the way, the theme of the sermon does not affect the behavior of seminarians: in one case they needed to talk about reaching out to others (for example, the parable of the Samaritan), in the other — talk about marital fidelity. In both groups, the results were about the same.
Time in 1973. For a long time, psychologists have tried to "classify" each person. Armed with thousands of tests, they confidently diagnosed: this — "Smart" and "impulsive", and he — "open" and "soft." But by the end of the 60 Rx for many, it became clear that all the "calculated" personality traits rarely help predict a person's behavior in a given situation.
In the science of morality is the concept of a bulky title: "The fundamental error of causal attribution." If in a simple way, then evaluating the actions of others, we too often explain their reasons for the personal qualities of the individual — dishonesty, callousness, aggressiveness, etc. And while we tend to less than is necessary to consider the influence of the external situation. And it turns out that such a small thing as an excess or lack of time, can dramatically change people's behavior. Even if they choose a career professional to serve God and love of neighbor.
Where this may be encountered Anywhere. In assessing their friends, relatives or any public figures. Do not rush to put the "diagnosis." Under the pressure of the situation "blunt guy" can be a real intellectual, and "the most liberal politician" — a bloody dictator.
How to fight and how to reconcile
Why is one group of people suddenly begins to hate the other? This little naive question was trying to solve a psychologist Muzafer Sheriff. He spent his childhood in the Turkish city of Izmir. In 1919, there came the Greek forces. Began a massacre killed many of his housemates. According to the scientist, the Greek soldiers have already raised over Muzaferom his bayonet, but at the last moment changed his mind and left thirteen teenager alive. Three years later, in Izmir began a new massacre, only this time the Turkish military killed and raped the Armenians and Greeks …
When Sheriff moved to the U.S., he decided to model the inter-group conflict in a summer camp for students. He divided unfamiliar with each other teens into two groups: "Rattlesnakes" and "Eagles". Once this has been created a situation of constant competition. In any competition could only win one of the teams, the prize for the competition could get only one group, and so the victory of one inevitably meant the loss of others.
Shortly between guys started this feud. It came to fisticuffs. The participants of each team stronger rallied together and increasingly hated rivals. When the "eagles" were asked to describe any of "rattlesnakes", they used words such as "pants", "zaznayki" and "scum."
"Snakes" answered them in kind. After that Sheriff began to create problematic situations that could be solved only by the combined forces of the two teams. For example, "accidentally" broke the bus and push him out of the ditch was only possible together. As a result of conflict came to an end, and the boys from both teams
went home quite happy with each other.
Start time 50? X. Examples of inter-group conflict can be found without difficulty. In only one in the Indo-Muslim massacres in India in 1947, a few weeks killing hundreds of thousands of people.
To rally the group morality and pit it on another, you need a little bit. In another experiment, a rigid separation between "us and them" arose only because one party hung on his chest green squares, and the other — the blue triangles.
Where this may be encountered We almost every day meet with the world into "us" and "not ours." In the role of evil "not ours" can be as newcomers from the Caucasus and the neighboring department employees. The laws of social psychology, and there, and there work the same.
The prison in the basement of the University
How long does the fact that the good-natured student Neformal turn into a cruel prison warden? Philip Zimbardo is required on all five days. He created in the basement of Stanford University's sort of this prison. She looked quite naturally: iron grilles, observation windows in the cells of the furniture — just bunk. There were placed volunteers subjects who simply toss a coin is divided into "prisoners" and "guards." At first it all seemed to play.
But very soon the students began to get used to the role. Three days later the lion's share of conversation in chambers was devoted to real life, and prison conditions, rations, beds. On their own initiative, "guards" every day tightened the rules. Recent pacifists became Cerberus. "Prisoners" were forced to wash toilets with their bare hands, they were handcuffed and forced to march naked down the hall …
One of the "guards" wrote in his diary: «№ 416 refuses to eat sausage … we throw him in solitary confinement, and ordered to hold in each hand a sausage. I pass by and Kolocha baton on the cooler door. I decided to force feed him, he did not have. I smeared it over his face food. I could not believe what I'm doing. "
Accustomed to the role and Philip Zimbardo, acting as "caretaker prison."
Situation fractures bride psychologist Christina Maslach. On the fifth day of the study, she came to see the experiment of her future husband. And the first thing that caught her eye, — rank prisoners, which was based were in the toilet, wearing bags on their heads.
— Did you see our circus? — Asked the psychologist.
— What do you do with these guys, awful — Christina wept.
It became obvious that the situation is out of control. And on the fifth day of the experiment was terminated, although it was designed for two weeks.
We asked Professor Zimbardo: he agreed to conduct an experiment, if I knew how to change much of its participants?
— Yes, of course, because this experiment allows us to see how far can a person in such a situation. True, if I had known from the beginning — would stop the experiment before, before the "protection" sadism began to emerge, and the "prisoners" — slave pathology attitude.
He admitted that he was going to repeat the prison experiment, wanting to compare the behavior of the "guards" held various teaching. However, the university authorities decided to refrain from such experiments.
Authorities initially responded to actively study Zimbardo. He was invited to the congress of the state. After leaving the podium, the first thing Zimbardo said, "I put your son in my prison, and he stood there and weeks. What can you expect from the guys who years in prison much worse than mine? "
For explanation of the study Zimbardo in Germany in 2001 was filmed feature film "Experiment» (Das Experiment). True, the name Zimbardo reason not mentioned in the credits, and the reproduction of the experiment lasts only the first two-thirds of the film — then begins fiction with lots of blood and massacre. This year, the U.S. should leave, hired by the film company Maverick Films, owned by Madonna. It is known that will be directed by Christopher McQuarrie, and the film's budget is $ 11 million.
Time in 1971. In the scientific community does not cease discussion of the experiments have revealed the man's inclination to obedience and conformity. Critics claim that their condition was too artificial. Zimbardo wanted to show how these effects work in a situation as close as possible to reality.
Morale Zimbardo experiment very entertaining and effective, but in reality it is very difficult to analyze. On the "guards" and "prisoners" are a variety of factors: the role stereotypes, the uncertainty of the situation, isolation, anonymity, etc. But the general conclusion is very simple: we can not even imagine, so quickly and dramatically the situation can change our personality. Moreover, we find ourselves hammered "prisoners" or cruel "supervisor", sometimes decided by a simple toss of a coin.
Where this may be encountered "prison effect" might work (even if not so eloquently) and more humane positions: director, teacher, security guard, etc.