In 1965, an eight-month-old boy, Bruce Reimer, who was born in Winnipeg, Canada, was circumcised on the advice of doctors. However, due to an error by the surgeon who performed the operation, the boy's penis was completely damaged.
1. A boy who was raised as a girl (1965-2004)
Psychologist John Money from Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore (USA), to whom the child’s parents turned for advice, advised them a “simple” way out of difficult situation: change the gender of the child and raise him as a girl until he grows up and begins to experience complexes about his male inadequacy.
No sooner said than done: Bruce soon became Brenda. The unfortunate parents had no idea that their child had become a victim of a cruel experiment: John Money had long been looking for opportunities to prove that gender conditioned not by nature, but by nurture, and Bruce became the ideal object of observation.
The boy had his testicles removed, and then for several years Mani published in scientific journals reports on the “successful” development of their experimental subject. “It is quite clear that the child behaves like an active little girl and her behavior is strikingly different from the male behavior of her twin brother,” the scientist assured. However, both family at home and teachers at school noted that the child typical behavior boy and displaced perceptions.
The worst thing was that parents who hid the truth from their son-daughter experienced strong emotional stress. As a result, the mother had suicidal tendencies, the father became an alcoholic, and the twin brother was constantly depressed.
When Bruce-Brenda reached adolescence, they began to give him estrogen to stimulate breast growth, and then Money began to insist on a new operation, during which Brandy would have to form female genital organs. But then Bruce-Brenda rebelled. He flatly refused to have the operation and stopped coming to see Mani.
Three suicide attempts followed one after another. The last of them ended in a coma for him, but he recovered and began the fight to return to a normal existence - as a person. He changed his name to David, cut his hair and started wearing men's clothing. In 1997, he underwent a series of reconstructive surgeries to regain his physical signs floor. He also married a woman and adopted her three children. However, there was no happy ending: in May 2004, after breaking up with his wife, David Reimer committed suicide at the age of 38.
2. "The Source of Despair" (1960)
Their cruel experiments Harry Harlow spent on monkeys. Exploring the issue social isolation individual and methods of protection against it, Harlow took the monkey child from its mother and placed it in a cage all alone, and chose those cubs whose connection with the mother was the strongest.
The monkey was kept in a cage for a year, after which it was released. Most individuals exhibited various psychical deviations. The scientist did the following conclusions: even happy childhood does not protect against depression.
The results, to put it mildly, are not impressive: such a conclusion could have been made without conducting cruel experiments on animals. However, the movement in defense of animal rights began precisely after the publication of the results of this experiment.
3. Milgram experiment (1974)
Stanley Milgram's experiment Yale University described by the author in the book “Submission to Authority: experimental study».
The experiment involved an experimenter, a test subject, and an actor who played the role of another test subject. At the beginning of the experiment, the roles of “teacher” and “student” were assigned by “draw” between the experimental subject and the actor. In fact, the subjects were always given the role of "teacher", and the hired actor was always the "student".
Before the experiment began, the “teacher” was explained that the purpose of the experiment was supposedly to identify new methods of memorizing information. However, the experimenter studied the behavior of a person who receives instructions from an authoritative source that diverge from his internal behavioral norms.
The “student” was tied to a chair, to which a stun gun was attached. Both the “student” and the “teacher” received a “demonstration” shock of 45 volts. Next, the “teacher” went into another room and had to give the “student” over voice communication simple tasks to remember. For each mistake by the student, the subject had to press a button, and the student would receive a 45-volt electric shock. In fact, the actor who played the role of the student only pretended to receive electric shocks. Then after each mistake the teacher had to increase the voltage by 15 volts.
At some point, the actor began to demand that the experiment be stopped. The “teacher” began to doubt, and the experimenter responded: “The experiment requires that you continue. Continue please." The more the current increased, the more discomfort the actor showed. Then he howled in severe pain and finally broke into a cry.
The experiment continued up to a voltage of 450 volts. If the “teacher” hesitated, the experimenter assured him that he took full responsibility for the experiment and for the safety of the “student” and that the experiment should continue.
The results were shocking: 65% of the “teachers” gave a shock of 450 volts, knowing that the “student” was in terrible pain. Contrary to all the preliminary predictions of the experimenters, the majority of the experimental subjects obeyed the instructions of the scientist who led the experiment and punished the “student” with an electric shock, and in a series of experiments out of forty experimental subjects, not one stopped before the level of 300 volts, five refused to obey only after this level, and 26 “teachers "out of 40 we reached the end of the scale.
Critics said the subjects were hypnotized by Yale's authority. In response to this criticism, Milgram repeated the experiment, renting sparse space in Bridgeport, Connecticut, under the banner of the Bridgeport Research Association. The results did not change qualitatively: 48% of the subjects agreed to reach the end of the scale. In 2002, the combined results of all similar experiments showed that from 61% to 66% of “teachers” reached the end of the scale, regardless of the time and place of the experiment.
The conclusions from the experiment were terrible: unknown dark side human nature is inclined not only to mindlessly obey authority and carry out unthinkable instructions, but also to justify own behavior received "order". Many participants in the experiment felt an advantage over the “student” and, when they pressed the button, they were sure that he was getting what he deserved.
Overall, the results of the experiment showed that the need to obey authority was so deeply rooted in our minds that the subjects continued to follow instructions, despite moral suffering and strong internal conflict.
4. Learned helplessness (1966)
In 1966, psychologists Mark Seligman and Steve Mayer conducted a series of experiments on dogs. The animals were placed in cages, previously divided into three groups. Control group after some time they were released without causing any harm, the second group of animals were subjected to repeated electric shocks, which could be stopped by pressing a lever from the inside, and the animals of the third group were subjected to sudden electric shocks, which could not be prevented in any way.
As a result, dogs have developed so-called “acquired helplessness” - a reaction to unpleasant stimuli based on the conviction of helplessness in front of the outside world. Soon the animals began to show signs of clinical depression.
After some time, the dogs from the third group were released from their cages and placed in open enclosures, from which they could easily escape. The dogs were exposed again electric current, however, none of them even thought about escaping. Instead, they reacted passively to pain, accepting it as something inevitable. The dogs learned for themselves from the previous negative experience that escape was impossible and they made no more attempts to jump out of the cage.
Scientists have suggested that the human reaction to stress is in many ways similar to a dog's: people become helpless after several failures, one after another. It is not clear whether such a banal conclusion was worth the suffering of the unfortunate animals.
5. Baby Albert (1920)
John Watson, the founder of the behaviorist movement in psychology, studied the nature of fears and phobias. While studying the emotions of children, Watson, among other things, became interested in the possibility of forming a fear reaction towards objects that had not previously caused it.
The scientist tested the possibility of forming emotional reaction fear of a white rat in a 9-month-old boy, Albert, who was not at all afraid of rats and even loved to play with them. During the experiment, for two months, an orphan child from an orphanage was shown a tame white rat, a white rabbit, cotton wool, a Santa Claus mask with a beard, etc. Two months later, the child was sat on a rug in the middle of the room and allowed to play with the rat. At first, the child was not at all afraid of her and played calmly with her. After a while, Watson began hitting a metal plate behind the child's back with an iron hammer every time Albert touched the rat. After repeated blows, Albert began to avoid contact with the rat. A week later, the experiment was repeated - this time they hit the plate five times, simply launching the rat into the cradle. The child cried when he saw a white rat.
After another five days, Watson decided to test whether the child would be afraid of similar objects. The boy was afraid of the white rabbit, cotton wool, and the Santa Claus mask. Because the loud sounds When showing the objects, the scientists did not publish, Watson concluded that fear reactions were transferred. He suggested that many fears, aversions and anxiety states adults are formed in early childhood.
Alas, Watson was never able to deprive Albert of fear for no reason, which was fixed for the rest of his life.
6. Landis Experiments: Spontaneous Facial Expressions and Subordination (1924)
In 1924, Karin Landis from the University of Minnesota began studying human facial expressions. The experiment, conceived by the scientist, was intended to reveal general patterns group work facial muscles, responsible for the expression of individual emotional states, and find facial expressions typical of fear, confusion or other emotions (if we consider facial expressions typical of most people to be typical).
His students became experimental subjects. To make facial expressions more expressive, he drew lines with cork soot on the faces of the experimental subjects, after which he showed them something that could cause powerful emotions: forced them to sniff ammonia, listen to jazz, look at pornographic pictures and put their hands in buckets of frogs. Students were photographed while expressing their emotions.
The last test that Landis prepared for students outraged wide circles of psychological scientists. Landis asked each subject to cut off the head of a white rat. All participants in the experiment initially refused to do this, many cried and screamed, but subsequently most of them agreed. The worst thing is that most of the participants in the experiment never hurt a fly and had absolutely no idea how to carry out the experimenter’s orders. As a result, the animals suffered a lot of suffering.
The consequences of the experiment turned out to be much more important than the experiment itself. Scientists were unable to detect any pattern in facial expressions, but psychologists received evidence of how easily people are ready to submit to authority and do what they would normally do. life situation wouldn't do it.
7. Study of the effects of drugs on the body (1969)
It should be recognized that some experiments carried out on animals help scientists invent drugs that can save tens of thousands in the future. human lives. However, some studies cross all ethical lines.
An example is an experiment designed to help scientists understand the speed and degree of human habituation to narcotic substances. The experiment was carried out on rats and monkeys as the animals closest to humans physiologically. The animals were trained to independently inject themselves with a dose of a certain drug: morphine, cocaine, codeine, amphetamine, etc. As soon as the animals learned to inject themselves, the experimenters left them a large number of drugs and began observation.
The animals were so confused that some of them even tried to escape, and, being under the influence of drugs, they were crippled and did not feel pain. Monkeys who took cocaine began to suffer from convulsions and hallucinations: the unfortunate animals tore out their phalanges. Monkeys who were “sat” on amphetamine pulled out all their hair. “Drug addict” animals that preferred a “cocktail” of cocaine and morphine died within 2 weeks after starting to take the drugs.
Although the purpose of the experiment was to understand and evaluate the extent of the effects of drugs on the human body with the intention of further development effective treatment drug addiction, the methods of achieving results can hardly be called humane.
8. Stanford prison experiment(1971)
The “artificial prison” experiment was not intended to be unethical or harmful to the psyche of the participants, but the results of this study amazed the public.
Famous psychologist Philip Zimbardo decided to study the behavior and social norms individuals who find themselves in atypical prison conditions and are forced to play the roles of prisoners or guards. To do this, a mock prison was set up in the basement of the psychology department, and student volunteers (24 people) were divided into “prisoners” and “guards.” It was assumed that the “prisoners” were placed in a situation where they would experience personal disorientation and degradation, up to and including complete depersonalization. The "overseers" were not given any specific instructions regarding their roles.
At first, the students did not really understand how they should play their roles, but already on the second day of the experiment everything fell into place: the uprising of the “prisoners” was brutally suppressed by the “guards.” From that moment on, the behavior of both sides changed radically. "Overseers" developed special system privileges, designed to separate the “prisoners” and sow distrust in them towards each other - individually they are not as strong as together, which means they are easier to “protect”. It began to seem to the “guards” that the “prisoners” were ready to start a new “uprising” at any moment, and the control system was tightened to the limit: the “prisoners” were not left alone with themselves, even in the toilet.
As a result, the “prisoners” began to experience emotional disorders, depression, and helplessness. After some time, the “prison priest” came to visit the “prisoners.” When asked what their names were, the “prisoners” most often gave their numbers rather than their names, and the question of how they were going to get out of prison puzzled them.
It turned out that the “prisoners” absolutely got used to their roles and began to feel like they were in a real prison, and the “warders” felt real sadistic emotions and intentions towards the “prisoners”, who a few days before were theirs. good friends. It seemed that both sides had completely forgotten that this was all just an experiment.
Although the trial was planned to last two weeks, it was stopped early after six days due to ethical concerns.
9. Project “Aversia” (1970)
In the South African army, from 1970 to 1989, they carried out a secret program to cleanse the military ranks of military personnel of non-traditional sexual orientation. They used all means: from electric shock treatment to chemical castration.
The exact number of victims is unknown, however, according to army doctors, during the “purges” various prohibited experiments on human nature about 1,000 military personnel were exposed. Army psychiatrists, on instructions from the command, were doing their best to “eradicate” homosexuals: those who did not undergo “treatment” were sent to shock therapy, forced to take hormonal drugs and even forced to undergo gender reassignment surgery.
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 an interesting experiment called the Stanford Prison Experiment. Planned for two weeks, it was stopped 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 assigned roles - prisoners and guards, and he himself became the “prison warden.” The surroundings were appropriate: the guards wore uniforms, and each had a baton, but the “criminals,” as befits people in such a position, were dressed in poor overalls and were not given underwear, and an iron chain was tied to his leg - as a reminder of prison. There was no furniture in the cells - only mattresses. The food was also not particularly special. In general, everything is true.
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 from a fire extinguisher on them. A little later, a VIP chamber was created for those who behaved well. Very soon the guards began to play games: they forced the prisoners to do push-ups, strip naked and clean the latrines with their hands. As punishment for riots (which, by the way, prisoners regularly organized), their mattresses were taken away. Later, a normal toilet became a privilege: those who rebelled were not allowed out of the cell - they were only brought a bucket.
Approximately 30% of the guards were found to have sadistic tendencies. Interestingly, the prisoners also became accustomed to their role. At first they were promised to give them 15 dollars daily. However, even after Zimbardo announced that he would not pay the money, no one expressed a desire to be released. People voluntarily decided to continue!
On the seventh day, a graduate student visited the prison: she was going to conduct a survey among the subjects. The picture simply shocked the girl - she was shocked by what she saw. After looking at the reaction of an outsider, Zimbardo realized that things had gone too far and decided to end the experiment early. The American Psychological Association has strictly forbidden it from ever being repeated for ethical reasons. The ban is still in effect.
Invisible Gorilla
Perceptual blindness is a phenomenon when a person is so overwhelmed with impressions that he does not notice anything around him. Attention is completely absorbed by only one object. Each of us suffers from this type of visual blindness from time to time.
Danielle Simons showed the subjects a video where people dressed in black and white T-shirts white, threw the ball to each other. The task was simple - count the number of throws. While two groups of people were throwing a ball, a man dressed in a gorilla suit appeared in the center of the sports ground: he pounded his chest with his fists, just like a real monkey, and then calmly walked away from the field.
After watching the video, participants in the experiment were asked if they noticed anything strange on the site. And as many as 50% answered negatively: half simply did not see the huge gorilla! This is explained not only by our focus on the game, but also by the fact that we are not ready to see something incomprehensible and unexpected in ordinary life.
Killer teachers
Stanley Milgram famous for his outrageous, hair-raising experiment. He decided to study how and why people obey authority. The psychologist was prompted to do this by the trial Nazi criminal Adolf Eichmann. Eichmann was accused of ordering the extermination of millions of Jews during World War II. Lawyers built a defense based on the assertion that he was just a military man and obeyed the orders of his commanders.
Milgram advertised in the newspaper and found 40 volunteers, ostensibly to study memory and learning abilities. Everyone was told that someone would be a teacher and someone would be a 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 remember the words, was tied to a chair and electrodes were connected to his body, after which the “teacher” was asked to go to another room.
2. In the “teacher’s” room there was an electric current generator. As soon as the “student” made a mistake while learning new words, he had to be punished with an electric shock. The process began with a small discharge of 30 volts, but each time it increased by 15 volts. Maximum point- 450 volts.
So that the “teacher” does not doubt the purity of the experiment, he is given an electric shock with a voltage of 30 volts - quite noticeably. And this is the only real category.
3. Then the fun begins. The “student” remembers the words, but soon makes mistakes. Naturally, the experimental “teacher” punishes him, as required by the instructions. With a discharge of 75 volts (fake, of course), the actor groans, then squeals and begs to be untied from the chair. Each time the current increases, the screams only get louder. The actor even complains of heart pain!
4. Of course, people were scared and wondered whether it was worth continuing. Then they were clearly told not to stop under any circumstances. And the people obeyed. Although some trembled and chuckled nervously, many did not dare to disobey.
5. At the 300 volt mark, the actor furiously pounded the wall with his fists and shouted that he was in great pain and could not bear this pain; at 330 volts it died down completely. Meanwhile, the “teacher” was told: since the “student” is silent, this is the same as an incorrect answer. This means that the silent “student” must be shocked again.
7. The experiment ended when the “teacher” chose the maximum discharge of 450 volts.
The findings were terrible: 65% of 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 pressure from 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 out to be psychological trauma for life.
Heinz's 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 - cancer was killing her. And by a stroke of luck, 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 medicine was only $200). This woman's husband - his name was Heinz - borrowed money from friends and collected 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 a good job?
This is the dilemma. Interestingly, Kohlberg did not study the answers to the question, but the reasoning of the children. As a result, he identified 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 go against 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 also knew how to quickly and without anesthesia insert a catheter into dogs - in order to track how emotions and medications affect arterial pressure(and whether they influence it at all).
Pavlov's famous experiment, when researchers developed new reflexes in dogs, became grand opening in psychology. Oddly enough, it was he who largely helped explain why a person develops panic disorders, anxiety, fears and psychoses (acute conditions with hallucinations, delusions, depression, inappropriate 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 salivation. As soon as the dog sees food, it begins to salivate. But the sound of a metronome is a neutral stimulus; it does not cause anything.
2. The dogs were allowed to listen to the sound of a metronome (which, as we remember, was a neutral stimulus) many times. After this, the animals were immediately fed (using an unconditioned stimulus).
3. After a while, they began to associate the sound of the metronome with eating.
4. The last phase is formed conditioned reflex. The sound of the metronome began to always make me salivate. And it doesn’t matter whether the dogs were given food after it or not. It simply became part of a conditioned reflex.
Drawing from Paul Kleinman's book Psychology. Publishing house "Mann, Ivanov and Ferber".
Excerpts courtesy of Mann, Ivanov and Ferber Publishing House
Psychology began to be intensively studied at the beginning of the 20th century. Most scientists were attracted by its goal - to explore interesting subtleties human behavior, emotions and perceptions. But, as often happens, some methods of achieving a goal cannot be called humane. Some practicing psychologists and psychiatrists conducted harsh experiments on animals and people. We have selected. The selection was made from the earliest to relatively recent experiments, so that one could clearly see the development of psychiatric thought. We warn you in advance that it is better not to read this article for those who are especially impressionable!
10 most cruel psychological experiments
1. Baby Albert (1920)
Doctor of Psychology John Watson studied nature. Watson decided to investigate the possibility of developing a fear of a white mouse in a nine-month-old orphan boy, Albert, who had not previously been afraid of mice and even loved to play with them.
Over the course of several months, the boy was shown a tame white mouse, cotton wool, a white rabbit, a Santa Claus mask with a beard, etc. Two months later, Albert was sat on a carpet and allowed to play with a mouse. At first, the child did not experience any fears at all and played calmly. But then the doctor behind the boy’s back began to hit the metal plate with an iron hammer every time Albert touched the mouse. It became clear that after repeated blows, the child began to avoid communicating with the mouse. A week later, the experiment was repeated - this time they hit the plate six times while launching the mouse into the room. Seeing the mouse, the child began to cry.
A few days later, the psychologist decided to see if Albert would experience fear of similar objects. As a result, they found out that the child began to be afraid of cotton wool, a white rabbit, and a Santa Claus mask, although Watson no longer made any sounds when showing these objects. The scientist concluded that the fear reaction was transferred. Watson suggested that many phobias, aversions and anxieties of adults are formed at an unconscious age. Unfortunately, the psychologist was never able to remove Albert’s acquired fears: they remained with him for the rest of his life.
2. Landis experiments (1924)
Karin Landis from the University of Minnesota began studying human facial expressions in 1924. The purpose of his experiment was to discover general patterns in the work of facial muscle groups that are responsible for the expression of certain emotional states, namely, to find facial expressions that are typical for fear, confusion and other similar emotions.
He identified his students as experimental subjects. The scientist drew lines with cork soot on the faces of his subjects to make their facial expressions more expressive. After that, Landis showed them something that could cause strong emotions: he forced the young people to sniff ammonia, listen to jazz, watch pornographic films and put their hands in buckets of frogs. At the moment when emotions appeared on the students’ faces, the scientist photographed them.
The last test that Landis prepared for his students simply outraged many psychologists. Landis ordered each test subject to cut off the head of a rat. At first, all participants in the experiment categorically refused to do this, many even cried and screamed, but in the end most of them agreed. Many participants in the experiment never even hurt a fly and had no idea how to carry out such an order.
As a result, the animals suffered a lot of suffering, and the experiment did not achieve its goal: scientists were unable to detect any pattern in facial expressions, but psychologists received proof that people can easily obey authority and do even things that they would never do in ordinary life would.
3. " Horrible experiment"(1939)
Wendell Johnson from the University of Iowa (USA) and his graduate student Mary Tudor conducted a shocking experiment in 1939 with the participation of 22 orphans from Davenport.
The children were divided into two groups: control and experimental. One half of the experimental subjects were told that their speech was impeccable, while the speech of the other children was ridiculed in every possible way; they were told that they were stutterers.
As a result, many children of the second group, who previously had no problems with speech, developed stuttering, and it persisted for life. This experiment, which was later called monstrous, was hidden from the public for a very long time for fear of damaging Johnson's reputation. But later similar experiments were still carried out on concentration camp prisoners
4. "The Source of Despair" (1960)
Dr. Harry Harlow conducted cruel experiments on monkeys. He explored the issue of social isolation of the individual and methods of protection against it. Harlow took the baby monkey away from its mother and placed it in a cage all alone. Moreover, he chose those babies who had the strongest connection with their mother.
Monkey whole year sat in a cage, and then she was released. Subsequently, it was discovered that most individuals exhibited various mental disorders. The scientist concluded: even a happy childhood does not prevent depression. However, such a simple conclusion could have been reached without cruel experiments. By the way, the movement in defense of animal rights began precisely after the results of this terrible study were made public.
5. Learned helplessness (1966)
Psychologists Mark Seligman and Steve Mayer conducted a series of experiments on dogs in their practice. The animals were pre-divided into three groups and then placed in cages. The control group was soon released without causing any harm, the second group of dogs were subjected to repeated shocks that could be stopped by pressing a lever from the inside, and the animals of the third group were the least fortunate: they were subjected to sudden shocks that could not be stopped.
As a result, the dogs developed “learned helplessness” - a reaction to unpleasant stimuli. Animals have acquired the belief that they are helpless in the face of outside world, and soon the unfortunate animals began to show signs of clinical depression.
After a while, the dogs from the third group were released from their cages and placed in open enclosures from which they could easily escape.
The dogs were then shocked again, but none of them ran away. Animals simply reacted passively to pain, perceiving it as something inevitable. From previous experience, the dogs had firmly learned that escape was impossible for them, and therefore they made no further attempts to free themselves.
Based on the results of this experiment, scientists suggested that a person's reaction to stress is similar to a dog's: people also become helpless after several failures in succession. But was such a predictable and banal conclusion worth the cruel suffering?
unfortunate animals?!
6. Study of the effects of drugs on the body (1969)
One of the experiments was designed to help scientists understand the speed and degree of human addiction to various drugs. The experiment began to be carried out on rats and monkeys, because these animals are physiologically closest to humans.
The experiment was carried out in such a way that the unfortunate animals were taught to independently inject themselves with a dose of a certain drug: cocaine, morphine, codeine, amphetamine, etc. As soon as the animals were able to “inject” on their own, the experimenters began their observations.
Being under strong impact drugs, the animals were greatly maimed and did not feel pain. Monkeys who took cocaine began to suffer from convulsions and hallucinations: the poor animals pulled out the phalanges of their fingers. Monkeys who “used” amphetamine pulled out all their hair. Animals exposed to cocaine and morphine died within 2 weeks of starting the lethal drugs.
7. Stanford Prison Experiment (1971)
This experiment with the so-called “artificial prison” was not initially intended as something unethical or harmful to the psyche of the participants, but the results of the study simply amazed the public.
Psychologist Philip Zimbardo set out to study the behavior and social norms of people who find themselves in atypical prison conditions, where they are forced to play the role of a prisoner and/or guard.
For this experiment, a very realistic simulation of a prison was created in the basement of the psychology department, and student volunteers (there were 24 of them) were divided into “prisoners” and “guards.” The "prisoners" were expected to be placed in situations in which they would experience personal disorientation and degradation, even to the point of complete depersonalization, and the "guards" were not given specific instructions for their roles.
At first, the students had no idea how they should play their roles, but the second day of the experiment put everything in its place: the uprising of the “prisoners” was brutally suppressed by the “guards.” That is, the behavior of both sides has changed dramatically. The “guards” developed a special system of privileges designed to separate the “prisoners” and sow distrust of each other among them - in order to make them weaker, because individually they are not as strong as together.
As a result, the control system became so strict that the “prisoners” were not left alone even in the toilet. They began to experience emotional distress, depression, and helplessness. When the “prisoners” were asked what their names were, many of them gave their number. And the question of how they intended to get out of prison simply baffled them.
As it turned out, the “prisoners” got so accustomed to their roles that they began to feel like prisoners of a real prison, and the students who got the role of “guards” felt real sadistic emotions and intentions towards people who had been for them just a few days ago good friends. Both sides seemed to have completely forgotten that this was all just an experiment.
This experiment was planned for two weeks, but it was stopped early due to ethical reasons.
8. Project “Aversia” (1970)
This is not an experiment, but real events, which took place in the South African army from 1970 to 1989. There they carried out a secret program to cleanse the military ranks of military personnel of non-traditional sexual orientation. At that time, cruel means were used: electric shock treatment and chemical castration.
The exact number of victims is still unknown, but army doctors said that during the “purges” about 1,000 people aged 16-24 were subjected to prohibited experiments on human nature.
On instructions from the command, army psychiatrists did their best to “eradicate” homosexuals: they sent them to shock therapy, forced them to take hormonal drugs, and even undergo gender reassignment surgery.
9. Milgram experiment (1974)
The experiment involved an experimenter, a test subject, and an actor who played the role of another test subject. Before the start of the experiment, the roles of “teacher” and “student” were distributed between the experimental subject and the actor. In reality, the subject was always given the role of "teacher", and the actor who was hired was always the "student".
Before the experiment began, it was explained to the “teacher” that the main objective experience - to discover new methods of memorizing information, but in fact the experimenter studied the behavior of a person receiving instructions from an authoritative source that diverge from his own understanding norms of behavior.
The experiment went like this: the “student” was tied to a chair with a stun gun. The “student” and “teacher” received a common “demonstration” electric shock of 45 volts. Then the “teacher” went to another room and from there had to give the “student” simple memorization tasks via voice communication. For each mistake, the “student” received an electric shock of 45 volts. In fact, the actor was only pretending to receive blows. Soon after each mistake, the “teacher” had to increase the voltage by 15 volts.
As planned, at a certain moment the actor began to demand that the experiment be stopped. At this time, the “teacher” was tormented by doubts, but the experimenter confidently said: “The experiment requires continuation. Please continue.” As the voltage increased, the actor showed more and more agony. Then he howled and started screaming.
The experiment continued up to a voltage of 450 volts. If the “teacher” began to doubt, the experimenter assured him that he took full responsibility for the results of the experiment and safety for the “student”.
The results were shocking: 65% of the “teachers” gave a shock of 450 volts, knowing that the “student” was in terrible pain. Most of the experimental subjects obeyed the experimenter's instructions and punished the “student” with electric shock. It is interesting that out of 40 test subjects, not one stopped at 300 volts, only five refused to obey after this level, and 26 “teachers” out of 40 reached the end of the scale.
Critics said the subjects were "hypnotized" by Yale's authority. In response, Dr. Milgram repeated the experiment, renting unsightly premises in the town of Bridgeport (Connecticut) under the guise of the Bridgeport Research Association. The results did not change: 48% of the subjects agreed to reach the end of the scale. In 2002 general results All similar experiments showed that 61-66% of “teachers” reach the end of the scale, and this does not depend on the time and place of the experiment.
The conclusion was terrible: a person really has a dark side of nature, which is inclined not only to mindlessly obey authority and carry out unthinkable instructions, but also finds justification for itself in the form of an order received. Many participants in the experiment, when pressing the button, felt dominance over the “student” and were confident that he was getting what he deserved.
10. Raising a boy like a girl (1965-2004)
In 1965, an 8-month-old boy, Bruce Reimer, was circumcised on the advice of doctors. But the surgeon who performed the operation made a mistake, and the boy's penis was completely damaged. The child's parents addressed their problem to psychologist John Money from Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore (USA). He advised them to have a “simple” way out of the situation, in his opinion - to change the sex of the child and raise him in the future as a girl.
And so it was done. Very soon Bruce became Brenda, and the unfortunate parents had no idea that their child had become a victim of a very cruel experiment. Psychologist John Money has long been looking for an opportunity to prove that a person’s gender is determined not by nature, but by upbringing, so Bruce became a suitable object for such observation.
Bruce had his testicles removed, and then for several years Dr. Money published reports in scientific journals about the “successful” development of his experimental subject. He argued that the child behaved like a small active girl and that her behavior was very different from the masculine behavior of her twin brother. But both family at home and teachers at school observed typical boy behavior in the child.
In addition, the parents who hid the cruel truth from their son and daughter themselves experienced very strong emotional stress, as a result of which the mother developed suicidal tendencies and the father began to drink heavily.
While Bruce-Brenda was already a teenager, he was given estrogen to stimulate breast growth. Soon, Dr. Money began to insist on another operation, as a result of which Brenda’s female genital organs would also be formed. But suddenly Bruce-Brenda rebelled and categorically refused to have the operation. Then the boy stopped coming to Mani’s appointments altogether.
Bruce's life was ruined. One after another, he made three suicide attempts, the last of which ended in a coma. But Bruce recovered and began the fight to return to normal human life. He cut his hair, started wearing men's clothes and changed his name to David.
In 1997, he had to undergo a series of operations to regain the physical characteristics of his gender. Soon he even married a woman and adopted her three children. But the happy ending never came: after divorcing his wife in May 2004, David Reimer committed suicide. At that time he was 38 years old.
Psychology as a science gained popularity at the beginning of the twentieth century. The noble goal of learning more about the intricacies of human behavior, perception, and emotional state was not always achieved by equally noble means. Psychologists and psychiatrists who stood at the origins of many branches of the science of human psyche, conducted experiments on people and animals that can hardly be called humane or ethical. Here are ten of them:
10. "Monstrous experiment"
In 1939, Wendell Johnson from the University of Iowa (USA) and his graduate student Mary Tudor conducted a shocking experiment involving 22 orphans from Davenport. The children were divided into control and experimental group. The experimenters told half of the children how clearly and correctly they spoke. The second half of the children were in for unpleasant moments: Mary Tudor, sparing no epithets, sarcastically ridiculed the slightest defect in their speech, eventually calling them all pathetic stutterers. As a result of the experiment, many children who had never experienced problems with speech and, by the will of fate, ended up in the “negative” group, developed all the symptoms of stuttering, which persisted throughout their lives. The experiment, later called “monstrous,” was hidden from the public for a long time for fear of damaging Johnson’s reputation: similar experiments were later carried out on concentration camp prisoners in Nazi Germany. In 2001, the University of Iowa issued a formal apology to all those affected by the study.
9. Project "Aversia"
In the South African army, from 1970 to 1989, a secret program was carried out to cleanse the army ranks of military personnel of non-traditional sexual orientation. All means were used: from electric shock treatment to chemical castration. The exact number of victims is unknown, however, according to army doctors, during the “purges” about 1,000 military personnel were subjected to various prohibited experiments on human nature. Army psychiatrists, on instructions from the command, did their best to “eradicate” homosexuals: those who did not respond to “treatment” were sent to shock therapy, forced to take hormonal drugs, and even subjected to gender reassignment surgery. In most cases, the “patients” were young white males between the ages of 16 and 24. The then leader of the “study,” Dr. Aubrey Levin, is now a professor of psychiatry at the University of Calgary (Canada). Engaged in private practice.
8. Stanford Prison Experiment
The 1971 “artificial prison” experiment was not intended by its creator to be unethical or harmful to the psyche of its participants, but the results of this study shocked the public. The famous psychologist Philip Zimbardo decided to study the behavior and social norms of individuals placed in atypical prison conditions and forced to play the roles of prisoners or guards. To do this, an imitation prison was set up in the basement of the psychology department, and 24 student volunteers were divided into “prisoners” and “guards.” It was assumed that the "prisoners" were initially placed in a situation during which they would experience personal disorientation and degradation, up to and including complete depersonalization. The "overseers" were not given any specific instructions regarding their roles. At first, the students did not really understand how they should play their roles, but already on the second day of the experiment everything fell into place: the uprising of the “prisoners” was brutally suppressed by the “guards.” From that moment on, the behavior of both sides changed radically. The “guards” have developed a special system of privileges designed to separate the “prisoners” and instill in them distrust of each other - individually they are not as strong as together, which means they are easier to “guard.” It began to seem to the “guards” that the “prisoners” were ready to start a new “uprising” at any moment, and the control system became tougher to the extreme: the “prisoners” were not left alone with themselves, even in the toilet. As a result, the “prisoners” began to experience emotional disorders, depression, and helplessness. After some time, the “prison priest” came to visit the “prisoners.” When asked what their names were, the “prisoners” most often gave their numbers rather than their names, and the question of how they were going to get out of prison led them to a dead end. To the horror of the experimenters, it turned out that the “prisoners” absolutely got used to their roles and began to feel like they were in a real prison, and the “warders” experienced real sadistic emotions and intentions towards the “prisoners”, who had been their good friends just a few days ago. It seemed that both sides had completely forgotten that this was all just an experiment. Although the experiment was planned to last for two weeks, it was stopped early after just six days due to ethical concerns.
7. Research on the effects of drugs on the body
It should be recognized that some experiments carried out on animals help scientists invent drugs that can later save tens of thousands of human lives. However, some studies cross all ethical lines. An example is a 1969 experiment designed to help scientists understand the speed and extent of human addiction to drugs. The experiment was carried out on rats and monkeys, as animals closest to humans in physiology. The animals were taught to independently inject themselves with a dose of a certain drug: morphine, cocaine, codeine, amphetamines, etc. As soon as the animals learned to “inject” on their own, the experimenters left them with a large amount of drugs, left the animals to their own devices and began observing. The animals were so confused that some of them even tried to escape, and, being under the influence of drugs, they were crippled and did not feel pain. Monkeys who took cocaine began to suffer from convulsions and hallucinations: the unfortunate animals tore out their phalanges. Monkeys on amphetamines had all their hair pulled out. “Drug addict” animals that preferred a “cocktail” of cocaine and morphine died within 2 weeks after starting to take the drugs. Despite the fact that the purpose of the experiment was to understand and evaluate the degree of impact of drugs on the human body with the intention of further developing effective treatment for drug addiction, the methods for achieving the results can hardly be called humane.
6. Landis Experiments: Spontaneous Facial Expressions and Submission
In 1924, Carini Landis from the University of Minnesota began studying human facial expressions. The experiment undertaken by the scientist was supposed to reveal the general patterns of the work of groups of facial muscles responsible for the expression of individual emotional states, and to find facial expressions typical of fear, embarrassment or other emotions (if facial expressions characteristic of most people are considered typical). The subjects were his own students. To make facial expressions more distinct, he drew lines on the subjects' faces with burnt cork, after which he presented them with something that could evoke strong emotions: he forced them to sniff ammonia, listen to jazz, look at pornographic pictures and put their hands in buckets of toads. Students were photographed while expressing their emotions. And everything would be fine, but the last test that Landis subjected the students to caused controversy in the widest circles of psychological scientists. Landis asked each subject to cut off the head of a white rat. All participants in the experiment initially refused to do this, many cried and screamed, but subsequently most of them agreed to do it. The worst thing was that most of the participants in the experiment, as they say, had never hurt a fly in their lives and had absolutely no idea how to carry out the experimenter’s orders. As a result, the animals suffered a lot of suffering. The consequences of the experiment turned out to be much more important than the experiment itself. Scientists were unable to find any pattern in facial expressions, but psychologists received evidence of how easily people are ready to obey authorities and do things that they would not do in a normal life situation.
5. Little Albert
John Watson, the father of the behaviorist movement in psychology, studied the nature of fears and phobias. In 1920, while studying the emotions of infants, Watson, among other things, became interested in the possibility of forming a fear response in relation to objects that had not previously caused fear. The scientist tested the possibility of forming an emotional reaction of fear of a white rat in a 9-month-old boy, Albert, who was not at all afraid of the rat and even loved to play with it. During the experiment, over the course of two months, an orphan baby from an orphanage was shown a tame white rat, a white rabbit, cotton wool, a Santa Claus mask with a beard, etc. Two months later, the child was seated on a rug in the middle of the room and allowed to play with the rat. At first, the child was not at all afraid of the rat and calmly played with it. After a while, Watson began hitting a metal plate behind the child's back with an iron hammer every time Albert touched the rat. After repeated blows, Albert began to avoid contact with the rat. A week later, the experiment was repeated - this time the strip was hit five times, simply placing the rat in the cradle. The baby cried only at the sight of a white rat. After another five days, Watson decided to test whether the child would be afraid of similar objects. The child was afraid of the white rabbit, cotton wool, and the Santa Claus mask. Since the scientist did not make loud sounds when showing objects, Watson concluded that fear reactions were transferred. Watson suggested that many fears, aversions and anxieties of adults are formed in early childhood. Unfortunately, Watson was never able to rid baby Albert of his unreasonable fear, which stuck for the rest of his life.
4. Learned helplessness
In 1966, psychologists Mark Seligman and Steve Mayer conducted a series of experiments on dogs. The animals were placed in cages, previously divided into three groups. The control group was released after some time without causing any harm, the second group of animals were subjected to repeated shocks that could be stopped by pressing a lever from the inside, and the animals of the third group were subjected to sudden shocks that could not be prevented. As a result, dogs have developed so-called “acquired helplessness” - a reaction to unpleasant stimuli based on the conviction of helplessness in front of the outside world. Soon the animals began to show signs of clinical depression. After some time, the dogs from the third group were released from their cages and placed in open enclosures, from which they could easily escape. The dogs were again subjected to electric shock, but none of them even thought about running away. Instead, they reacted passively to pain, accepting it as something inevitable. The dogs learned from previous negative experiences that escape was impossible and no longer made any attempts to jump out of the cage. Scientists have suggested that the human reaction to stress is in many ways similar to that of dogs: people become helpless after several failures following one another. It is not clear whether such a banal conclusion was worth the suffering of the unfortunate animals.
3. Milgram experiment
The 1974 experiment by Stanley Milgram of Yale University is described by the author in the book Obedience to Authority: An Experimental Study. The experiment involved an experimenter, a subject, and an actor playing the role of another subject. At the beginning of the experiment, the roles of “teacher” and “student” were distributed “by lot” between the subject and the actor. In reality, the subject was always given the role of "teacher", and the hired actor was always the "student". Before the experiment began, the “teacher” was explained that the purpose of the experiment was supposedly to identify new methods of memorizing information. In reality, the experimenter examines the behavior of a person receiving instructions that diverge from his internal behavioral norms from an authoritative source. The “student” was tied to a chair, to which a stun gun was attached. Both the “student” and the “teacher” received a “demonstration” shock of 45 volts. Then the “teacher” went into another room and had to speakerphone give the “student” simple tasks to remember. For each student error, the test subject had to press a button and the student received a 45-volt electric shock. In reality, the actor playing the student was only pretending to receive electric shocks. Then after each mistake the teacher had to increase the voltage by 15 volts. At some point, the actor began to demand that the experiment be stopped. The “teacher” began to doubt, and the experimenter responded: “The experiment requires that you continue. Continue, please.” As the tension increased, the actor acted out more and more intense discomfort, then severe pain, and finally broke into a scream. The experiment continued up to a voltage of 450 volts. If the "teacher" hesitated, the experimenter assured him that he took full responsibility for the experiment and for the safety of the "student" and that the experiment should continue. The results were shocking: 65% of the “teachers” gave a shock of 450 volts, knowing that the “student” was in terrible pain. Contrary to all the preliminary predictions of the experimenters, the majority of the subjects obeyed the instructions of the scientist in charge of the experiment and punished the “student” with electric shock, and in a series of experiments out of forty subjects, not one stopped before the level of 300 volts, five refused to obey only after this level, and 26 “teachers” from 40 reached the end of the scale. Critics said the subjects were hypnotized by Yale's authority. In response to this criticism, Milgram repeated the experiment, renting a shabby room in the town of Bridgeport, Connecticut, under the banner of the Bridgeport Research Association. The results did not change qualitatively: 48% of the subjects agreed to reach the end of the scale. In 2002, the combined results of all similar experiments showed that from 61% to 66% of “teachers” reached the end of the scale, regardless of the time and place of the experiment. The conclusions from the experiment were the most frightening: the unknown dark side of human nature is inclined not only to mindlessly obey authority and carry out the most unthinkable instructions, but also to justify one’s own behavior by the “order” received. Many participants in the experiment felt a sense of superiority over the “student” and, when they pressed the button, they were sure that the “student” who answered the question incorrectly would get what he deserved. Ultimately, the results of the experiment showed that the need to obey authority is so deeply rooted in our minds that the subjects continued to follow instructions, despite moral suffering and strong internal conflict.
2. "The Source of Despair"
Harry Harlow conducted his cruel experiments on monkeys. In 1960, while researching the issue of social isolation of an individual and methods of protection against it, Harlow took a baby monkey from its mother and placed it in a cage all alone, and chose those babies who had the strongest bond with their mother. The monkey was kept in a cage for a year, after which it was released. Most individuals showed various mental disorders. The scientist made the following conclusions: even a happy childhood is not a protection against depression. The results, to put it mildly, are not impressive: a similar conclusion could have been made without conducting cruel experiments on animals. However, the movement in defense of animal rights began precisely after the publication of the results of this experiment.
1. A boy who was raised as a girl
In 1965, eight-month-old baby Bruce Reimer, born in Winnipeg, Canada, was circumcised on the advice of doctors. However, due to an error by the surgeon who performed the operation, the boy's penis was completely damaged. Psychologist John Money from Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore (USA), to whom the child’s parents turned for advice, advised them a “simple” way out of a difficult situation: change the sex of the child and raise him as a girl until he grows up and begins to experience sex complexes. about his male incompetence. No sooner said than done: Bruce soon became Brenda. The unfortunate parents had no idea that their child had become a victim of a cruel experiment: John Money had long been looking for an opportunity to prove that gender was determined not by nature, but by nurture, and Bruce became the ideal object of observation. The boy's testicles were removed, and then for several years Mani published reports in scientific journals about the "successful" development of his experimental subject. “It is absolutely clear that the child behaves like an active little girl and her behavior is strikingly different from the boyish behavior of her twin brother,” the scientist assured. However, both family at home and teachers at school noted typical boyish behavior and biased perceptions in the child. The worst thing was that the parents, who were hiding the truth from their son and daughter, experienced severe emotional stress. As a result, the mother became suicidal, the father became an alcoholic, and the twin brother was constantly depressed. When Bruce-Brenda reached adolescence, he was given estrogen to stimulate breast growth, and then Money began to insist on a new operation, during which Brenda would have to form female genitalia. But then Bruce-Brenda rebelled. He flatly refused to have the operation and stopped coming to see Mani. Three suicide attempts followed one after another. The last of them ended in a coma for him, but he recovered and began the fight to return to a normal existence - as a man. He changed his name to David, cut his hair and began wearing men's clothes. In 1997, he underwent a series of reconstructive surgeries to restore the physical characteristics of his gender. He also married a woman and adopted her three children. However, there was no happy ending: in May 2004, after breaking up with his wife, David Reimer committed suicide at the age of 38.
One of them has already been discussed here. the most cruel experiments, telling how a girl was raised from a boy (). But he is not the only one who exists in the history of psychology. I suggest you familiarize yourself with other, no less monstrous, experiments.
Little Albert (1920)
John Watson, the father of the behaviorist movement in psychology, studied the nature of fears and phobias. While studying the emotions of infants, Watson, among other things, became interested in the possibility of forming a fear response in relation to objects that had not previously caused fear. The scientist tested the possibility of forming an emotional reaction of fear of a white rat in a 9-month-old boy, Albert, who was not at all afraid of the rat and even loved to play with it. During the experiment, over the course of two months, an orphan baby from an orphanage was shown a tame white rat, a white rabbit, cotton wool, a Santa Claus mask with a beard, etc. Two months later, the child was seated on a rug in the middle of the room and allowed to play with the rat. At first, the child was not at all afraid of the rat and calmly played with it. After a while, Watson began hitting a metal plate behind the child's back with an iron hammer every time Albert touched the rat. After repeated blows, Albert began to avoid contact with the rat. A week later, the experiment was repeated - this time the strip was hit five times, simply placing the rat in the cradle. The baby cried only at the sight of a white rat. After another five days, Watson decided to test whether the child would be afraid of similar objects. The child was afraid of the white rabbit, cotton wool, and the Santa Claus mask. Since the scientist did not make loud sounds when showing objects, Watson concluded that fear reactions were transferred. Watson suggested that many fears, aversions and anxieties of adults are formed in early childhood. Unfortunately, Watson was never able to rid baby Albert of his unreasonable fear, which stuck for the rest of his life.
Milgram experiment (1974)
The experiment of Stanley Milgram from Yale University is described by the author in the book “Obeying Authority: An Experimental Study.” The experiment involved an experimenter, a subject, and an actor playing the role of another subject. At the beginning of the experiment, the roles of “teacher” and “student” were distributed “by lot” between the subject and the actor. In reality, the subject was always given the role of "teacher", and the hired actor was always the "student". Before the experiment began, the “teacher” was explained that the purpose of the experiment was supposedly to identify new methods of memorizing information. In reality, the experimenter examines the behavior of a person receiving instructions that diverge from his internal behavioral norms from an authoritative source. The “student” was tied to a chair, to which a stun gun was attached. Both the “student” and the “teacher” received a “demonstration” shock of 45 volts. Then the “teacher” went into another room and had to give the “student” simple memorization tasks over the speakerphone. For each student error, the test subject had to press a button and the student received a 45-volt electric shock. In reality, the actor playing the student was only pretending to receive electric shocks. Then after each mistake the teacher had to increase the voltage by 15 volts. At some point, the actor began to demand that the experiment be stopped. The “teacher” began to doubt, and the experimenter responded: “The experiment requires that you continue. Continue, please.” As the tension increased, the actor acted out more and more intense discomfort, then severe pain, and finally broke into a scream. The experiment continued up to a voltage of 450 volts. If the "teacher" hesitated, the experimenter assured him that he took full responsibility for the experiment and for the safety of the "student" and that the experiment should continue. The results were shocking: 65% of the “teachers” gave a shock of 450 volts, knowing that the “student” was in terrible pain. Contrary to all the preliminary predictions of the experimenters, the majority of the subjects obeyed the instructions of the scientist in charge of the experiment and punished the “student” with electric shock, and in a series of experiments out of forty subjects, not one stopped before the level of 300 volts, five refused to obey only after this level, and 26 “teachers” from 40 reached the end of the scale. Critics said the subjects were hypnotized by Yale's authority. In response to this criticism, Milgram repeated the experiment, renting a shabby room in the town of Bridgeport, Connecticut, under the banner of the Bridgeport Research Association. The results did not change qualitatively: 48% of the subjects agreed to reach the end of the scale. In 2002, the combined results of all similar experiments showed that from 61% to 66% of “teachers” reached the end of the scale, regardless of the time and place of the experiment. The conclusions from the experiment were the most frightening: the unknown dark side of human nature is inclined not only to mindlessly obey authority and carry out the most unthinkable instructions, but also to justify one’s own behavior by the “order” received. Many participants in the experiment felt a sense of superiority over the “student” and, when they pressed the button, they were sure that the “student” who answered the question incorrectly would get what he deserved. Ultimately, the results of the experiment showed that the need to obey authority is so deeply rooted in our minds that the subjects continued to follow instructions, despite moral suffering and strong internal conflict.
Here (http://narod.ru/disk/4518943000/povinuemost_DivX.avi.html) you can download documentary"Obedience", compiled from video materials of the Milgram experiment (474 MB, 49 minutes). Unfortunately, not very good quality.
Stanford Prison Experiment (1971)
The “artificial prison” experiment was not intended by its creator as something unethical or harmful to the psyche of its participants, but the results of this study shocked the public. The famous psychologist Philip Zimbardo decided to study the behavior and social norms of individuals placed in atypical prison conditions and forced to play the roles of prisoners or guards. To do this, an imitation prison was set up in the basement of the psychology department, and 24 student volunteers were divided into “prisoners” and “guards.” It was assumed that the "prisoners" were initially placed in a situation during which they would experience personal disorientation and degradation, up to and including complete depersonalization. The "overseers" were not given any specific instructions regarding their roles. At first, the students did not really understand how they should play their roles, but already on the second day of the experiment everything fell into place: the uprising of the “prisoners” was brutally suppressed by the “guards.” From that moment on, the behavior of both sides changed radically. The “guards” have developed a special system of privileges designed to divide the “prisoners” and instill in them distrust of each other - individually they are not as strong as together, which means they are easier to “guard.” It began to seem to the “guards” that the “prisoners” were ready to start a new “uprising” at any moment, and the control system became tougher to the extreme: the “prisoners” were not left alone with themselves, even in the toilet. As a result, the “prisoners” began to experience emotional disorders, depression, and helplessness. After some time, the “prison priest” came to visit the “prisoners.” When asked what their names were, the “prisoners” most often gave their numbers rather than their names, and the question of how they were going to get out of prison led them to a dead end. To the horror of the experimenters, it turned out that the “prisoners” absolutely got used to their roles and began to feel like they were in a real prison, and the “warders” experienced real sadistic emotions and intentions towards the “prisoners”, who had been their good friends just a few days ago. It seemed that both sides had completely forgotten that this was all just an experiment. Although the experiment was planned to last for two weeks, it was stopped early after just six days due to ethical concerns.
Based on this experiment, Oliver Hirschbiegel made the film “The Experiment” (2001).
"Monstrous Experiment" (1939)
In 1939, Wendell Johnson from the University of Iowa (USA) and his graduate student Mary Tudor conducted a shocking experiment involving 22 orphans from Davenport. The children were divided into control and experimental groups. The experimenters told half of the children how clearly and correctly they spoke. The second half of the children were in for unpleasant moments: Mary Tudor, sparing no epithets, sarcastically ridiculed the slightest defect in their speech, eventually calling them all pathetic stutterers. As a result of the experiment, many children who had never experienced problems with speech and, by the will of fate, ended up in the “negative” group, developed all the symptoms of stuttering, which persisted throughout their lives. The experiment, later called “monstrous,” was hidden from the public for a long time for fear of damaging Johnson’s reputation: similar experiments were later carried out on concentration camp prisoners in Nazi Germany. In 2001, the University of Iowa issued a formal apology to all those affected by the study.
Project "Aversia" (1970)
In the South African army, from 1970 to 1989, a secret program was carried out to cleanse the army ranks of military personnel of non-traditional sexual orientation. All means were used: from electric shock treatment to chemical castration. The exact number of victims is unknown, however, according to army doctors, during the “purges” about 1,000 military personnel were subjected to various prohibited experiments on human nature. Army psychiatrists, on instructions from the command, did their best to “eradicate” homosexuals: those who did not respond to “treatment” were sent to shock therapy, forced to take hormonal drugs, and even subjected to gender reassignment surgery. In most cases, the “patients” were young white males between the ages of 16 and 24. The leader of the “study,” Dr. Aubrey Levin, is now a professor of psychiatry at the University of Calgary (Canada). Engaged in private practice.
Research on the effects of drugs on the body (1969)
It should be recognized that some experiments carried out on animals help scientists invent drugs that can later save tens of thousands of human lives. However, some studies cross all ethical lines. An example is an experiment designed to help scientists understand the speed and degree of human addiction to drugs. The experiment was carried out on rats and monkeys, as animals closest to humans in physiology. The animals were taught to independently inject themselves with a dose of a certain drug: morphine, cocaine, codeine, amphetamines, etc. As soon as the animals learned to “inject” on their own, the experimenters left them with a large amount of drugs, left the animals to their own devices and began observing. The animals were so confused that some of them even tried to escape, and, being under the influence of drugs, they were crippled and did not feel pain. Monkeys who took cocaine began to suffer from convulsions and hallucinations: the unfortunate animals tore out their phalanges. Monkeys on amphetamines had all their hair pulled out. “Drug addict” animals that preferred a “cocktail” of cocaine and morphine died within 2 weeks after starting to take the drugs. Despite the fact that the purpose of the experiment was to understand and evaluate the degree of impact of drugs on the human body with the intention of further developing effective treatment for drug addiction, the methods for achieving the results can hardly be called humane.
Landis Experiments: Spontaneous Facial Expressions and Submission (1924)
In 1924, Carini Landis from the University of Minnesota began studying human facial expressions. The experiment undertaken by the scientist was supposed to reveal general patterns in the work of groups of facial muscles responsible for the expression of individual emotional states, and to find facial expressions typical of fear, embarrassment or other emotions. The subjects were his own students. To make facial expressions more distinct, he drew lines on the subjects' faces with burnt cork, after which he presented them with something that could evoke strong emotions: he forced them to sniff ammonia, listen to jazz, look at pornographic pictures and put their hands in buckets of toads. Students were photographed while expressing their emotions. And everything would be fine, but the last test that Landis subjected the students to caused controversy in the widest circles of psychological scientists. Landis asked each subject to cut off the head of a white rat. All participants in the experiment initially refused to do this, many cried and screamed, but subsequently most of them agreed to do it. The worst thing was that most of the participants in the experiment, as they say, had never hurt a fly in their lives and had absolutely no idea how to carry out the experimenter’s orders. As a result, the animals suffered a lot of suffering. The consequences of the experiment turned out to be much more important than the experiment itself. Scientists were unable to find any pattern in facial expressions, but psychologists received evidence of how easily people are ready to obey authorities and do things that they would not do in a normal life situation.
Learned Helplessness (1966)
In 1966, psychologists Mark Seligman and Steve Mayer conducted a series of experiments on dogs. The animals were placed in cages, previously divided into three groups. The control group was released after some time without causing any harm, the second group of animals were subjected to repeated shocks that could be stopped by pressing a lever from the inside, and the animals from the third group were subjected to sudden shocks that could not be prevented. As a result, dogs have developed so-called “acquired helplessness” - a reaction to unpleasant stimuli based on the conviction of helplessness in front of the outside world. Soon the animals began to show signs of clinical depression. After some time, the dogs from the third group were released from their cages and placed in open enclosures, from which they could easily escape. The dogs were again subjected to electric shock, but none of them even thought about running away. Instead, they reacted passively to pain, accepting it as something inevitable. The dogs learned from previous negative experiences that escape was impossible and no longer made any attempts to jump out of the cage. Scientists have suggested that the human reaction to stress is in many ways similar to that of dogs: people become helpless after several failures following one another. It is not clear whether such a banal conclusion was worth the suffering of the unfortunate animals.
"The Source of Despair" (1960)
Harry Harlow conducted his cruel experiments on monkeys. Investigating the issue of social isolation of an individual and methods of protecting against it, Harlow took a baby monkey from its mother and placed it in a cage all alone, and chose those babies who had the strongest connection with their mother. The monkey was kept in a cage for a year, after which it was released. Most individuals showed various mental disorders. The scientist made the following conclusions: even a happy childhood is not a protection against depression. The results, to put it mildly, are not impressive: a similar conclusion could have been made without conducting cruel experiments on animals. However, the movement in defense of animal rights began precisely after the publication of the results of this experiment.