In order to provide answers to strange human questions and solve global problems, sociologists had to conduct social experiments, some of which were so unethical that they could shock even animal rights activists who generally despise people. But without this knowledge we would never have understood this strange society.
Halo effect
Or, as it is also called, the “halo effect” is a classic social psychology experiment. Its whole point is that global assessments about a person (for example, whether he is cute or not) are transferred to judgments about their specific characteristics (if he is cute, that means he is smart). Simply put, a person uses only the first impression or memorable trait in assessing personality. Hollywood stars perfectly demonstrate the halo effect. After all, for some reason it seems to us that such nice people cannot be idiots. But alas, in reality they are little smarter than a tame toad. Remember when only people with an attractive appearance seemed good, for which many did not really like older people and the artist Alexander Bashirov. Essentially it's the same thing.
The cognitive dissonance
Festinger and Carlsmith's groundbreaking social psychological experiment in 1959 gave birth to a phrase that many still do not understand. This is best illustrated by an incident that occurred in 1929 with the surrealist artist Rene Magritte, who presented to the public a realistic image of a smoking pipe with the caption in good, proper French, “This is not a pipe.” That awkward feeling, when you seriously wonder which of you two is the idiot, is cognitive dissonance.
Theoretically, dissonance should cause a desire to either change ideas and knowledge in accordance with reality (that is, stimulate the process of cognition), or double-check incoming information for its authenticity (a friend, of course, is joking, and his ultimate goal is to see yours distorted, like Ron’s Weasley, I'll give birth). In fact, a variety of concepts coexist quite comfortably in the human brain. Because people are stupid. The same Magritte who gave the painting the title “The Cunning of the Image” was faced with an uncomprehending crowd and critics who demanded that the title be changed.
Robbers' Cave
In 1954, Turkish psychologist Muzafer Sherif conducted the “Robbers’ Cave” experiment, during which it came to the point that children were ready to kill each other.
A group of ten- to twelve-year-old boys from good Protestant families were sent to a summer camp run by psychologists. The boys were divided into two separate groups that only met together during sporting competitions or other events.
The experimenters provoked an increase in tension between the two groups, in part by keeping the competition score close in points. The sheriff then created problems like a water shortage, which required both teams to unite and work together in order to achieve the goal. Of course, the common work brought the guys together.
According to Sheriff, reducing tension between any groups should be facilitated by informing about the opposing side in a positive light, encouraging informal, “human” contacts between members of conflicting groups, and constructive negotiations between leaders. However, none of these conditions can be effective on their own. Positive information about the “enemy” is most often not taken into account, informal contacts easily turn into the same conflict, and mutual compliance of leaders is regarded by their supporters as a sign of weakness.
Stanford prison experiment
An experiment that inspired the filming of two films and the writing of a novel. It was conducted to explain conflicts in US correctional facilities and the Marine Corps, and at the same time to study group behavior and the importance of roles within it. The researchers selected a group of 24 male students who were considered healthy, both physically and psychologically. These men signed up to participate in a “psychological study of prison life,” for which they were paid $15 a day. Half of them were randomly selected to become prisoners, and the other half were assigned to the role of prison guards. The experiment took place in the basement of the psychology department at Stanford University, where they even created an improvised prison for this purpose.
Prisoners were given the standard instructions of prison life, which included maintaining order and wearing a uniform. To make things even more realistic, the experimenters even carried out impromptu arrests in the homes of the subjects. The guards were never supposed to resort to violence against prisoners, but they did need to control order. The first day passed without incident, but the prisoners rebelled on the second day, barricading themselves in their cells and ignoring the guards. This behavior infuriated the guards, and they began to separate the “good” prisoners from the “bad” ones and even began to punish the prisoners, including public humiliation. Within just a few days, the guards began to display sadistic tendencies, and the prisoners became depressed and showed signs of severe stress.
Stanley Milgram's Obedience Experiment
Don't tell your sadistic boss about this experiment, because in his experiment Milgram was trying to clarify the question: how much suffering are ordinary people willing to inflict on other, completely innocent people, if such infliction of pain is part of their job duties? In fact, this explained the huge number of victims of the Holocaust.
Milgram theorized that people are naturally inclined to obey authority figures and set up an experiment that was presented as a study of the effects of pain on memory. Each trial was divided into the roles of "teacher" and "student", who was the actor, so that only one person was the actual participant. The whole experiment was designed in such a way that the invited participant always got the role of “teacher”. Both were in separate rooms, and the “teacher” was given instructions. He had to press a button to shock the “student” every time he gave an incorrect answer. Each subsequent incorrect answer led to an increase in tension. In the end, the actor began to complain of pain, accompanied by a cry.
Milgram found that most participants simply followed orders, continuing to inflict pain on the “student.” If the subject showed hesitation, then the experimenter demanded the continuation of one of the predetermined phrases: “Please continue”; “The experiment requires you to continue”; “It is absolutely necessary that you continue”; "You have no other choice, you have to continue." What’s most interesting is that if the current had actually been applied to the students, they simply would not have survived.
False Consensus Effect
People tend to assume that everyone else thinks exactly the same as they do, which gives the impression of a non-existent consensus. Many people believe that their own opinions, beliefs and passions are much more widespread in society than they really are.
The false consensus effect was studied by three psychologists: Ross, Green, and House. In one, they asked participants to read a message about a conflict that had two resolutions.
Then the participants had to say which of the two options they themselves would choose, and which option the majority would choose, and also characterize the people who would choose one or the other option.
The researchers found that no matter which option participants chose, they tended to think that most people would choose it too. It also found that people tend to give negative descriptions of people who choose an alternative.
Social identity theory
The behavior of people in groups is an extremely fascinating process. As soon as people get together in groups, they begin to do strange things: copy the behavior of other group members, look for a leader to fight other groups, and some put together their own groups and begin to fight for dominance.
The authors of the experiment locked people in a room, individually and in a group, and then blew out smoke. Surprisingly, one participant was much quicker to report smoke than the group. The decision-making was influenced by the environment (if the place is familiar, the likelihood of help is higher), doubt whether the victim needs help or is okay, and the presence of others within the radius of the crime.
Social identity
People are born conformists: we dress alike and often copy each other’s behavior without a second thought. But how far is a person willing to go? Isn’t he afraid of losing his own “I”?
This is what Solomon Asch tried to find out. Participants in the experiment were seated in an auditorium. They were shown two cards in order: the first showed one vertical line, the second - three, only one of which was the same length as the line on the first card. The students' task is quite simple - they need to answer the question which of the three lines on the second card has the same length as the line shown on the first card.
The student had to look at 18 pairs of cards and, accordingly, answer 18 questions, and each time he answered last in the group. But the participant was in a group of actors who first gave the correct answer, and then began to give a deliberately incorrect one. Asch wanted to test whether the participant would comply with them and also give the wrong answer, or would answer correctly, accepting the fact that he would be the only one to answer the question differently.
Thirty-seven of the fifty participants agreed with the group's incorrect answer, despite physical evidence to the contrary. Asch cheated in this experiment without obtaining informed consent from the participants, so these studies cannot be reproduced today.
Social experiment
(Latin experimentum - test, experience) - a method of scientific research and an element in the management of social phenomena and processes; carried out in the form of a controlled impact on these phenomena and processes and is aimed at finding opportunities to achieve planned new results.
S. e. represents an important means of improving forms of management of social life, forms of its organization in accordance with the objective laws of its development; to a certain extent, it allows, before embarking on various types of innovations, to first identify the extent of their feasibility and effectiveness in given conditions. The experiment helps to discover new opportunities and reserves for increasing labor productivity, developing social relations, increasing the activity of workers, and their participation in production management. Scheme S. e. usually the next one. First, a target setting (and a hypothesis tested in an experiment) is formulated, for example, the influence of the system of remuneration and distribution of bonuses depending on the final results of production (harvested crops, products of a given enterprise entered into trade and sold, repairs of buses with a warranty period for their operation on the line etc.) on the growth of labor productivity, on the attitude towards work. Then experimental and control (serving for comparison) objects are found, those parameters that are significant for the final result (for example, the level of technical equipment, planned indicators, etc.) are identified, which must be constant during the experiment, deadlines are determined, periodic measurements of experimental variables are carried out and etc. Before conducting an experiment, a preliminary clarification on the part of public organizations of its goals and conditions is necessary. Since S. e. intertwined with the real, ordinary activities of people, the natural limits of its applicability are the inadmissibility of causing losses in the event of a false hypothesis, especially moral damage by its participants. The purpose of the experiment is not only a production effect, but also an educational one, increasing the social activity of its participants. Experiments of this type often arise in the process of preparing and implementing plans for the social development of work collectives (see) and are inextricably linked with the active creative activity of workers. They are possible only in a socialist society, where the means of production and state power are in the hands of the people, led by the Communist Party. The social experimentation of such predecessors of scientific communism as Owen and Fourier was utopian and did not justify itself for the reason that it was based on attempts to build islands of socialist relations of production within the framework of a class antagonistic society with the goal of changing this society under the influence of example (see. ; ).
S. e. as a method of scientific research differs from the experiment described above as an element in the management of social processes by the nature of problem solving and the fact that the subject of experimental activity here is an experimental scientist. In this case, the subjects should not know that an experimental study is being conducted in their environment, since this knowledge itself can influence the result. Scientific social experiments are actively carried out in pedagogy, social psychology and other social sciences. Their scope is usually limited to a small group; their goal is to study the mechanisms and factors influencing the formation of the individual and his upbringing in the team.
In modern conditions, when increased requirements for the level of socialism are imposed in socialist countries, the practice of social experimentation is expanding. All this makes it necessary to further improve the methods of S. e., the forms of its implementation. One of the promising methods is an experiment on a model, which precedes a real experiment with the social object itself and allows, in a short time and without damage to the object, to study and evaluate various options for changing it. The most effective in this case is a human-machine modeling system, in which one part of the object’s parameters is formalized, while the other part remains unformalized and is presented in the form of concepts, scenarios, and value orientations of a person interacting with the formal part in an interactive mode. Model experiments make it possible to more accurately determine the strategy of a real experiment, but cannot replace it. Only an experiment on the object itself allows one to obtain reliable knowledge about the effectiveness of the hypotheses being tested.
Scientific communism: Dictionary. - M.: Politizdat. Alexandrov V.V., Amvrosov A.A., Anufriev E.A., etc.; Ed. A. M. Rumyantseva. 1983 .
See what “Social experiment” is in other dictionaries:
Social experiment- Social experiment is a method of studying social phenomena and processes, carried out by observing changes in a social object under the influence of factors that control and direct its development. Social experiment... ... Wikipedia
Social experiment- (see Social experiment) ... Human ecology
SOCIAL EXPERIMENT- a research technique in the social sciences, which consists in analyzing the general patterns of the object under study (individual, team, group) by creating specific conditions and factors of its functioning... Professional education. Dictionary
Experiment- (from Latin experimentum trial, experience) a method of cognition, with the help of which phenomena of reality are studied under controlled and controlled conditions. Differing from observation (See Observation) by actively operating with the object being studied, E.... ... Great Soviet Encyclopedia
EXPERIMENT IN SOCIOLOGY- method of collecting and analyzing empirical data. data aimed at testing hypotheses regarding causal relationships between phenomena. Usually (in a real experiment) this check is carried out by the experimenter’s intervention in the natural course of events: he... ... Russian Sociological Encyclopedia
SOCIAL EXPERIMENT- scientific method cognition and optimization of social systems, which is realized through observation of their behavior in controlled and controlled conditions. E. s. performs two functions simultaneously: research and management, and therefore belongs... Philosophical Encyclopedia
See Social Experiment... Scientific communism: Dictionary
EXPERIMENT- (from Latin experimentum trial, experience), a method of cognition, with the help of which phenomena of reality are studied under controlled and controlled conditions. E. is carried out on the basis of a theory that determines the formulation of tasks and its interpretation... ... Philosophical Encyclopedia
Dosadi's experiment- The Dosadi Experiment
SOCIAL EXPERIMENT- English experiment, social; German Experiment, soziales. Method of studying social phenomena and processes carried out by observing changes in social. object under the influence of factors that control and direct its development in accordance with... ... Encyclopedia of Sociology
Books
- FREEDOM OF SPEECH AGAINST FEAR AND HUMILIATION. LIVE SOCIAL EXPERIMENT AND THE FIRST MAP OF UKRAINE'S EMOTIONS, Savik Shuster. Man of the Year, the most handsome man in Ukraine, Honored Journalist of Ukraine, the most popular TV presenter, Savik Shuster has dozens of high-profile epithets and titles. His programs and projects, wherever...
We are accustomed to consider ourselves reasonable, independent people who are not disposed to inexplicable manifestations of cruelty or indifference. In fact, this is not at all true - in certain circumstances, homo sapiens surprisingly easily part with their “humanity”. T&P publishes a selection of psychological experiments that confirm this.
Asch experiment, 1951
The study was aimed at studying conformity in groups. Student volunteers were invited ostensibly for an eye test. The subject was in a group with seven actors, whose results were not taken into account when summing up the results. The young people were shown a card with a vertical line on it. Then they were shown another card, where three lines were already depicted - the participants were asked to determine which of them corresponded in size to the line from the first card. The subject's opinions were asked last.
A similar procedure was carried out 18 times. In the first two rounds, the participants were persuaded to name the correct answers, which was not difficult, since the coincidence of the lines on all the cards was obvious. But then they began to unanimously adhere to the obviously incorrect option. Sometimes one or two actors in the group were instructed to choose the correct options 12 times. But, despite this, the subjects experienced extreme discomfort from the fact that their opinion did not coincide with the opinion of the majority.
As a result, 75% of students were not ready to oppose the majority opinion at least once - they pointed to the false option, despite the obvious visual inconsistency of the lines. 37% of all answers turned out to be false, and only one subject from the control group of thirty-five people made one mistake. Moreover, if group members disagreed or when there were two independent subjects in the group, the likelihood of making an error decreased fourfold.
What does this say about us?
People are highly dependent on the opinions of the group they are in. Even if it contradicts common sense or our beliefs, this does not mean that we can resist it. As long as there is at least a ghostly threat of condemnation from others, it can be much easier for us to drown out our inner voice than to defend our position.
The Good Samaritan Experiment, 1973
The parable of the Good Samaritan tells how a traveler freely helped a wounded and robbed man on the road, whom everyone else was passing by. Psychologists Daniel Baston and John Darley decided to test how strongly such moral imperatives influence human behavior in a stressful situation.
One group of seminary students was told the parable of the Good Samaritan and then asked to preach a sermon about something they had heard in another building on campus. The second group was tasked with preparing a speech about various job opportunities. At the same time, some of the subjects were asked to especially hurry on the way to the audience. On their way from one building to another, students passed a man lying on the ground in an empty alley who looked like he needed help.
It turned out that the students who were preparing a speech about the Good Samaritan on the way reacted to such an emergency situation in the same way as the second group of subjects - their decision was influenced solely by the time limit. Only 10% of seminarians who were asked to come to the classroom as soon as possible helped a stranger - even if shortly before they heard a lecture about the importance of helping a neighbor in a difficult situation.
What does this say about us?
We can with surprising ease abandon religion or any other ethical imperatives when it suits us. People tend to justify their indifference with the words “this doesn’t concern me,” “I still can’t help,” or “they’ll manage here without me.” Most often this happens not during disasters or crisis situations, but in the course of everyday life.
The Indifferent Witness Experiment, 1968
In 1964, a criminal attack on a woman, repeated twice within half an hour, ended with her death on the way to the hospital. More than a dozen people witnessed the crime (in its sensational publication, Time magazine mistakenly pointed to 38 people), and yet no one bothered to treat the incident with due attention. Based on these events, John Darley and Bib Latein decided to conduct their own psychological experiment.
They invited volunteers to participate in the discussion. Hoping that extremely sensitive issues would be discussed, the consenting participants were asked to communicate remotely - using intercoms. During the conversation, one of the interlocutors simulated an epileptic seizure, which could be clearly recognized by the sounds from the speakers. When the conversation took place one-on-one, 85% of the subjects reacted vividly to what happened and tried to help the victim. But in a situation where the participant in the experiment believed that there were 4 other people in the conversation besides him, only 31% had the strength to make an attempt to somehow influence the situation. Everyone else thought that someone else should do it.
What does this say about us?
If you think that a large number of people around ensures your safety, this is not at all true. Crowds can be indifferent to the plight of others, especially when people from marginalized groups find themselves in difficult situations. As long as there is someone else nearby, we happily shift responsibility for what is happening to him.
Stanford Prison Experiment, 1971
The US Navy wanted to better understand the nature of conflict in its correctional facilities, so the department agreed to pay for an experiment by behavioral psychologist Philip Zimbardo. The scientist set it up like a prison and invited male volunteers to take on the roles of guards and prisoners - all of them were college students.
Participants had to pass a test of health and mental stability, after which they were divided by lot into two groups of 12 people - guards and prisoners. The guards wore uniforms from a military store that replicated the actual uniforms of prison guards. They were also given wooden batons and mirrored sunglasses, behind which their eyes were not visible. The prisoners were given uncomfortable clothes without underwear and rubber slippers. They were called only by numbers that were sewn onto the uniform. They also could not remove the small chains from their ankles, which were supposed to constantly remind them of their imprisonment. At the beginning of the experiment, the prisoners were sent home. From there they were allegedly arrested by state police, who facilitated the experiment. They were fingerprinted, photographed and had their license read out. After which they were stripped naked, examined and assigned numbers.
Unlike the prisoners, the guards worked in shifts, but many of them were happy to work overtime during the experiment. All subjects received $15 per day ($85 adjusted for inflation when converted to 2012). Zimbardo himself acted as the general manager of the prison. The experiment was supposed to last 4 weeks. The guards were given one single task - to walk around the prison, which they could carry out as they themselves wanted, but without using force against the prisoners.
Already on the second day, the prisoners staged a riot, during which they barricaded the entrance to the cell with beds and teased the guards. They responded by using fire extinguishers to calm the unrest. Soon they were forcing their charges to sleep naked on bare concrete, and the opportunity to use the shower became a privilege for the prisoners. Terrible unsanitary conditions began to spread in the prison - prisoners were denied access to the toilet outside their cells, and the buckets they used to relieve themselves were prohibited from cleaning as punishment.
Every third guard showed sadistic tendencies - the prisoners were mocked, some were forced to wash drain barrels with their bare hands. Two of them were so mentally damaged that they had to be excluded from the experiment. One of the new participants, who replaced those who dropped out, was so shocked by what he saw that he soon went on a hunger strike. In retaliation, he was placed in a cramped closet - solitary confinement. Other prisoners were given a choice: refuse blankets or leave the troublemaker in solitary confinement all night. Only one person agreed to sacrifice his comfort. About 50 observers monitored the work of the prison, but only Zimbardo’s girlfriend, who came to conduct several interviews with the participants in the experiment, was outraged by what was happening. The Stamford prison was closed six days after people were admitted there. Many guards expressed regret that the experiment ended prematurely.
What does this say about us?
People very quickly accept the social roles imposed on them and are so carried away by their own power that the line of what is permissible in relation to others is rapidly erased for them. The participants in the Stanford experiment were not sadists, they were very ordinary people. Like, perhaps, many Nazi soldiers or torturers at Abu Ghraib prison. Higher education and good mental health did not prevent the subjects from using violence against those people over whom they had power.
Milgram experiment, 1961
During the Nuremberg trials, many convicted Nazis justified their actions by saying that they were simply following someone else's orders. Military discipline did not allow them to disobey, even if they did not like the instructions themselves. Interested in these circumstances, Yale psychologist Stanley Milgram decided to test how far people can go to harm others if this is part of their job responsibilities.
Participants in the experiment were recruited for a small fee from volunteers, none of whom were of concern to the experimenters. At the very beginning, the roles of “student” and “teacher” were supposedly played between the subject and a specially trained actor, and the subject always got the second role. After this, the “student” actor was demonstratively tied to a chair with electrodes, and the “teacher” was given an introductory shock of 45 V and taken to another room. There he was seated at a generator, where 30 switches from 15 to 450 V were located in steps of 15 V. Under the control of an experimenter - a man in a white coat who was in the room all the time - the “teacher” had to check the “student’s” memorization of the set pairs of associations that were read to him in advance. For every mistake he received a punishment in the form of an electric shock. With each new error the discharge increased. The switch groups have been signed. The final caption stated the following: “Danger: hard-to-bear shock.” The last two switches were outside the groups, were graphically isolated and marked with the marker “X X X”. The “student” answered using four buttons, his answer was indicated on a light board in front of the teacher. The “teacher” and his student were separated by a blank wall.
If the “teacher” hesitated in assigning punishment, the experimenter, whose persistence increased as doubts increased, used specially prepared phrases to convince him to continue. At the same time, he could under no circumstances threaten the “teacher.” Upon reaching 300 volts, clear blows to the wall were heard from the “student’s” room, after which the “student” stopped answering questions. Silence for 10 seconds was interpreted by the experimenter as an incorrect answer, and he asked to increase the power of the blow. At the next discharge of 315 volts, even more persistent blows were repeated, after which the “student” stopped responding to questions. A little later, in another version of the experiment, the rooms were not as soundproofed, and the “student” warned in advance that he had heart problems and twice, at discharges of 150 and 300 volts, complained of feeling unwell. In the latter case, he refused to continue his participation in the experiment and began to scream loudly from behind the wall when new blows were administered to him. After 350 V, he stopped showing signs of life, continuing to receive current discharges. The experiment was considered complete when the “teacher” administered the maximum possible punishment three times.
65% of all subjects reached the last switch and did not stop until the experimenter asked them to do so. Only 12.5% refused to continue immediately after the victim knocked on the wall for the first time - all the rest continued to press the button even after the answers stopped coming from behind the wall. Later, this experiment was carried out many more times - in other countries and circumstances, with or without reward, with male and female groups - if the basic basic conditions remained unchanged, at least 60% of the subjects reached the end of the scale - despite their own stress and discomfort.
What does this say about us?
Even being severely depressed, contrary to all expert predictions, the vast majority of subjects were ready to give fatal electric shocks to a stranger only because there was a man in a white coat nearby who told them to do it. Most people follow authority surprisingly easily, even when doing so has devastating or tragic consequences.
A social experiment is a research project conducted with people in the real world. The main task is to find out how society and individuals will react in various life situations. This is necessary for a better understanding of how culture and people work, how they interact with each other.
Preamble
A social experiment is a unique way of studying society as a whole, as well as each person individually. Before you begin to study society, it is necessary to develop a certain concept. It is important to understand what conditions are considered critical, how an individual can react to a particular situation, and what tools are needed to carry out the next analysis. In this article we will learn everything about social experiment methods and why they are needed.
Short story
In the 1920s, the famous statistician Ronald Fisher began to develop universal methods for social experiments. This made it possible to understand how perfect this method of studying society and its behavior can be.
Fisher realized that no two groups could be identical, but behavioral patterns could contain up to 90% similarity. He noted that it is possible, through experiments, to make more accurate statistical calculations concerning society.
The first major social experiment was conducted in New Jersey (1968). Of course, before this, many statisticians have carried out analysis using different methods, but it was this year that people's attitudes to the new negative income tax law in the 1960s, whose developers were Jason Tobin and Milton Friedman, were carefully examined.
Now social experiments are being carried out both in Russia and in other countries around the world. But what do they give and what role do they play in the development of society?
Why is such research needed?
It is important to realize that a social experiment is a great way to learn about human culture. Not a single science, not a single technical device, even the latest, will be able to assess the behavioral qualities of each individual in various situations.
Any social experiment can prove or disprove a theory, so all methods are different from each other. In addition, such research allows you to meticulously study the character and opinions of people around the world, as well as use this knowledge for the benefit of the development of humanity.
Any experiment leads to a specific conclusion, from which scientists (statisticians, sociologists, philosophers, psychologists) will build on in the future.
Any one is carried out only in artificially created conditions. In the natural environment, social behavior is studied extremely rarely. That is, most situations are staged, where one initiator or an organizing group is involved.
The main reason why such experiments are needed is to create a unique method of managing, educating and developing our society, developing effective training programs and directing forces and capabilities in the right direction.
Such different techniques
All social experiments can be divided into several categories. They can be pedagogical, psychological or economic. It is important to understand that they can be carried out in controlled conditions and vice versa, within the walls of a laboratory or building.
Each method is similar to each other; they are separated only by the area in which society will be studied. But the main task is to obtain specific information with an evidence base, eliminate the possibility of the development of uncontrollable situations and be prepared for any changes.
What is taken into account
No social experiment is conducted without careful preparation. To do this you need:
Examples of a social experiment
The results of the analysis are considered as follows: a test group of people of a certain gender, age, race, social status is taken, introduced into artificially designed life situations (political, religious, etc.), and then conclusions are drawn about the person’s actions. The final score should show how ready people are for violence, how passive or active they are, whether they have racist or sexist views, aggressive or compassionate, whether they obey authority, whether they have their own opinions.
Let's take a look at a few of the most common international social experiments. People from all over the world regularly develop new concepts to study the behavioral pattern of the population. And thanks to the development of the Internet in the 21st century, the results of all experiments can be observed online on any resource on the network.
Against domestic violence
This experiment was conducted by the initiative organization STHLM Panda in 2014.
Researchers installed a hidden camera in an elevator while group members played a negative husband and his victim wife. The male actor threatened and physically assaulted the woman. It was important that during the experiment there were other members of the public in the elevator who were unaware that they were being observed.
The result stunned the initiative group. Most of the elevator passengers ignored the violence, believing that it was wrong to interfere in other people's squabbles. They pretended that it didn’t concern them, looking away, looking at the phone, putting on headphones. According to statistics, only one person for every 50 subjects is ready to intervene in a showdown and prevent domestic violence.
Divided by ethnicity and gender
This experiment was conducted by the initiative group Social Misfits in 2010.
This experiment involved two young male actors, neatly dressed, but arousing suspicion with their appearance. One person has light skin, and the other has dark skin. They take turns role-playing the theft of a bicycle chained to a pole in a public park.
Two actors (one after the other) spend an hour trying to break a bicycle lock. At this time, at least 100 people must pass (this figure is necessary for subsequent statistics).
The conclusions of this experiment are not very encouraging. When a light-skinned actor acts out a bicycle theft, only 1 in 100 people are willing to take immediate action. Several people may ask: “Is this your bike?”, but subsequently laugh when a member of the initiative group seriously answers that he is stealing it. But when a black actor acts out the same thing, within seconds a crowd of people can gather to stop him. Most take out their mobile phones and people call the police. When an experiment is suspended by the initiative group, and then resumed again after some time, the same thing happens again.
But the experiment does not end there, because it shows how people divide their fellow humans by gender and ethnicity. This time a pretty girl in beautiful clothes appears on the public stage. She also tries to steal a bicycle, but people passing by do not try to stop her or call the police. On the contrary, they come up and offer her help.
Divided by ethnicity and employment
This experiment was conducted by the initiative organization National Center for Social Research in 2009.
The researchers submitted nearly 3,000 job applications under false names. This social experiment method was intended to show whether employers discriminate against applicants with foreign names.
The initiative group discovered that a fictitious specialist sending a resume to an organization, who had a name and description familiar to people (for example, Ivan Ivanov), received a huge number of responses. Minority applicants (such as Magomed Kaiyrbekovich) with the same qualifications and work experience had to submit two to three times as many applications to receive a sufficient number of responses from organizations.
To summarize, we can say that not a single organization has subsequently given a single intelligible and plausible explanation for how specialists are selected for a new position. However, racial and national discrimination occurs all over the world, not only in the USA or European countries, but also in Russia. This is because a large number of those employed are migrants and neighboring countries - Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Armenia, Georgia, etc.
"Self-Fulfilling Prophecy"
This experiment was conducted by Rosenthal and Jacobson in 1968.
The purpose of this study was to identify and measure the impact of high teacher expectations on student achievement.
Rosenthal and Jacobson conducted their experiment at a California elementary school they called Oak School. The students took an IQ test and, based on this, two researchers informed teachers that 20% of students would be able to demonstrate incredible abilities in the next year. In reality, this number of schoolchildren was selected randomly.
All students were retested 8 months later, and the high-expected 20% scored 12, although the average at the time was 8.
Rosenthal and Jacobson concluded that higher teacher expectations were responsible for this difference in superior performance, providing evidence for labeling the self-fulfilling prophecy theory.
Features of a social experiment
At first glance, it may seem that conducting this analysis is a meaningless and unfruitful exercise. But any experiment in social psychology helps scientists and public figures change a person’s behavioral model by introducing new industries into different spheres of life.
All results are recorded and entered into a common database to obtain a statistical graph. Thus, the government can, although remotely, know about the consequences of new laws, get acquainted with the opinions of the country’s residents and make rational decisions. Members of society, in turn, understand each other better, making changes to the model of upbringing and education of the new generation.
Finally
Any socio-pedagogical experiment is not a farce, but a way of getting to know, study and understand society as a whole. Any analysis model affects absolutely all spheres of life (mechanical engineering, medicine, education, science, religion).
Guys, we put our soul into the site. Thank you for that
that you are discovering this beauty. Thanks for the inspiration and goosebumps.
Join us on Facebook And In contact with
Scientists and big brands love to conduct social experiments to get people to understand. It happens that participants act bypassing the rules, their actions do not obey the laws of logic, and even the best psychologists do not immediately understand what is going on.
website collected several cool social experiments that received an unexpected conclusion, gave us interesting thoughts and, perhaps, have already changed this world for the better.
13. If a field is left unattended, will people steal or pay for the food collected?
Essence: There are self-service fields along the roads. Anyone can collect a bouquet of flowers, vegetables or fruits. Nearby there is a sign with a price tag and a box where people put money. No one looks after the box, everything is done according to conscience.
Result: There are practically no thefts. People often leave more money than indicated on the price tag. Typically, proceeds from sales go to charitable organizations.
12. What will happen if some drivers are fined and others are rewarded?
11. What happens if you place a piano ladder next to an escalator?
10. Do ordinary people easily recognize talent or do they just like what is popular?
Essence: U2 band members disguised themselves accompanied by street musicians and gave a free concert in the subway. It is usually extremely difficult to get to their performance: tickets are sold out within a few hours. Will passers-by be able to recognize the talent behind the images of unknown street performers?
Result: people didn't pay attention to the musicians until they exposed themselves. Similar experiment done by Cristiano Ronaldo in his native Madrid: Few people were interested in the footballer's skill in a homeless man's costume until Ronaldo took off his mask.
9. What happens if you read bad news every day?
Essence: Over the course of 7 days, some Facebook users saw posts with negative information more often in their feeds. Some of the news contained materials with a very emotional context. 689,003 users took part in the experiment.
Result: news adjusted user behavior, prompting them to show negative emotions more often and publish similar information. People perceived bad news as if the events had happened in their lives and were part of their own experiences. As part of the experiment, the opposite theory was also tested: by filling one’s life with positive news, a person feels happier and more often shows kindness, love and compassion.
8. How to unite people with different views?
7. What will happen if you pay unemployed people €560 a month just like that?
Essence: 2 thousand people receive €560 per month for 2 years just like that. This money is paid instead of unemployment benefits and does not oblige people to look for work at all. But if during this time a person gets a job somewhere or opens his own company, the payments will not stop or decrease.
Result: There has been a decrease in the growth of anxiety among people. €560 is a modest income for Finland, but it is guaranteed and monthly, thanks to which people can choose a job that they like, start their own business or continue studying to obtain higher qualifications. This helped many people find themselves and within six months get a job with a higher income than before.
6. What happens if you give users complete freedom of action and some free space?
Essence: Reddit launched an interesting project - huge online canvas, where each user could draw by selecting a pixel and changing its color. To paint the second pixel, you need to wait 5 minutes or act as a group. This is how a group of “creators” appeared who created drawings, and groups who painted different corners of the canvas with the same color. There were also “guardians” who protected the drawings from hooligans.
Result: At first, the “creators”, thanks to the “guardians,” created complex drawings. But then censorship appeared: the “guardians” decided which drawings to protect. While users were fighting, those who filled any pixels with black appeared. Destroying everything, they made way for new drawings. The project lasted 72 hours and turned into a visual model of the coexistence of people in society.
5. How does adult support affect children?
Essence: The teacher divided the children in the class into 2 groups according to eye color. On the 1st day of the experiment, blue-eyed people received a lot of advantages, praise and support, while brown-eyed people wore special ribbons around their necks and were deprived of attention and privileges. On the 2nd day, the children switched roles.
Result: The group of privileged children felt supported by the teacher and began to demonstrate better academic results, while at the same time acting arrogant and arrogant towards the 2nd group. The 2nd group behaved in a humble manner; the children became worse at solving even simple problems. This was repeated when the groups switched roles. Today, many institutions working with difficult children use support and praise methods to “re-educate” children.
4. What will happen if all foreign products are removed from store shelves?
Result: all portraits created on the basis of self-descriptions were radically different from portraits based on descriptions of strangers. Usually a person exaggerates his shortcomings, while strangers see the image as a whole and, on the contrary, pay attention to the advantages.
2. How does music in a taxi affect passengers?
Essence: the driver changed the music in the car once a week, observing how this affected the behavior of passengers and his personal rating in the taxi application.
Result: While playing rock music and retro songs, the driver's rating dropped, the vast majority of passengers refused to listen to rap - the driver's rating dropped significantly. Many people liked the absolute hits of past years, but the classics with rock additions received the most positive reactions. As a result, the driver decided to leave classical music for a while. Hearing pleasant music made people more likely to leave good tips.
Essence: 67 people were invited to take a DNA test to find out about their origins and go on a journey in the footsteps of your DNA thanks to Momondo. Almost everyone was confident that they had a good understanding of their roots; many were prejudiced against other peoples and nations.
Result: the test revealed that none of the 67 people were a member of a pure race or ethnicity. Almost all participants in the experiment turned out to be carriers of genes from those nationalities that were treated with prejudice. The experiment forced each participant to reconsider their attitude towards themselves and other people. Some have suggested using the test in schools to help eradicate xenophobia, racism and ethnic extremism.