5 of psychological experiments that showed the worst side of humanity

We are accustomed to consider themselves intelligent, self-sufficient people who are not inclined to inexplicable cruelty or indifference. In fact this is not true - in certain circumstances, homo sapiens is surprisingly easy to part with their "humanity."

1. Experiment Asch (1951)
The study was designed to investigate conformity in groups. Student volunteers were invited to check the alleged vision. The subject was in the group with seven actors, whose results are not taken into account when summing up. Young people have shown a card on which was depicted a vertical line. Then they were shown another card, where it was shown three lines - the participants were asked to determine which of them corresponds to the size of the line on the first card. Opinions of the test asked at the last turn.
A similar procedure was carried out 18 times. In the first two passes podgovorennye participants called the right answers, it was not difficult, because the lines match all the cards have been obvious. But then they began to stick unanimously wrong option. Sometimes one or two actors in the group pointed out 12 times to choose the right options. But despite this, the subjects experienced extreme discomfort from the fact that their views did not coincide with the majority opinion.

As a result, 75% of students at least once were not willing to speak out against the majority opinion - they pointed the wrong option, despite the obvious visual mismatch lines. 37% of the responses were false, and only one subject in the control group of thirty-five people made one mistake. However, if members of the group disagreed or where independent test group were two, the probability of error was reduced four times.

What does that say about us?
People are highly dependent on the opinions of a group in which there are. Even if it is contrary to common sense or our beliefs, it does not mean that we can resist him. As long as there is at least a ghostly threat of condemnation from others, we can be much easier to drown out your inner voice than to defend its position.

2.Eksperiment with Good Samaritan (1973)
The parable of the Good Samaritan tells of how free the traveler on the road helped the wounded and robbed man passed by others. Psychologists Denieel Bastogne and John Darley decided to check how much these moral imperatives affect human behavior in a stressful situation.
One group of seminary students told the parable of the good Samaritan and then asked to read a sermon about what they heard in the other campus buildings. The second group was asked to prepare a speech about the different possibilities for the device to work. At the same time some of the subjects were asked to hurry up especially towards the audience. On the way from one building to another, students met on an empty alley lying on the ground a man who looked as if he needed help.

It was found that the students who prepared the way of talking about the good Samaritan, to respond to such emergency situations as well as the second group of subjects - their decisions affect only a limited time. Only 10% of seminarians, who were asked to come to the classroom as soon as possible, have a stranger help - even if not long before they heard a lecture about how important it is to help your neighbor in a difficult situation.

What does that say about us?
We can with surprising ease to abandon religion or any other ethical imperatives when it is profitable to us. People tend to justify their indifference by the words "this does not concern me," "I still can not help anything," or "here will manage without me." In most cases this does not happen during disasters or crisis situations, and in the course of everyday life.

3.Eksperiment indifferent witness (1968)
In 1964, the criminal attack on the woman, who repeated twice within an hour, ended with her death on the way to the hospital. Witnesses of Crime has become more than a dozen people (his sensational publication of Time magazine mistakenly pointed to 38 people), and yet no one bothered to treat the incident with due care. On the motives of these events, John Darley and Bib Lateyn decided to conduct its own psychological experiment.
They invited volunteers to participate in the discussion. Hoping that the discussion will be extremely sensitive issues, consent of the parties proposed to communicate remotely - using communication devices. During the conversation, one of the interlocutors feigned an epileptic seizure, which could be clearly recognized by the sounds of the speakers. When the conversation took place one by one, 85% of subjects vividly reacted to the case and tried to render assistance to the victim. But in a situation where the participants in the experiment believed that apart from him in conversation involved another 4 persons, only 31% were force to attempt to influence the situation. Everyone else thought that it should deal with someone else.

What does that say about us?
If you think that a large number of people around ensures your safety - it is not so. The crowd can be indifferent to the suffering of others, especially when in a difficult situation get people from marginalized groups. While there are a number someone else, we are happy to pass on the responsibility for what happens.

4. Stanford Prison Experiment (1971)
Navy US wanted to better understand the nature of conflict in its prisons, so the agency has agreed to pay an experiment psychologist Philip Zimbardo behavior. Scientific equipped basement at Stanford University as a prison and asked male volunteers to those examples on the roles of guards and prisoners - all of them were college students.
Participants were required to pass a test on health and mental stability, then by drawing lots were divided into two groups of 12 people - prisoners and overseers. The guards wore uniforms from the military store that copied this form of prison guards. Also, they were given wooden batons and mirrored sunglasses, which have not been seen eye. Prisoners are provided uncomfortable clothes without underwear and rubber flip-flops. They were known only to numbers that were sewn to form. They also could not shoot with a small ankle chains that had to constantly remind them of their detention. At the beginning of the experiment the prisoners released. From there, they were allegedly arrested by the state police, which facilitated the experiment. They passed the procedure of fingerprinting, photographing and reading of rights. Then they were stripped naked, inspected and assigned a number.

Unlike the prisoners, the guards worked in shifts, but many of them during the experiment happy to come to work overtime. All participants received $ 15 a day ($ 85 dollars c inflation when converted to 2012). Zimbardo himself acted as chief executive officer of the prison. The experiment was to last 4 weeks. Before the guards posed one single task - to bypass the jail, which they could spend as they want to do, but without the use of force against prisoners.

By the second day, prisoners staged a riot, during which they barricaded the entrance to the chamber using the bed and taunted officers. Those responded with fire extinguishers to calm the unrest. Soon they were forced to sleep naked in his players on the bare concrete, and the ability to use the shower has become a privilege for prisoners. In prison, began to spread unsanitary terrible - detainees were denied going to the toilet outside the chamber, and the buckets they used to relieve needs, forbidden to remove as punishment.

Sadistic guard showed one in three - of prisoners abused, forced to wash drain some barrels with his bare hands. Two of them were so mentally scarred that they had to be excluded from the experiment. One of the new members, replacing the retired, was so shocked by what he saw that soon declared a hunger strike. In retaliation, he was placed in a tight closet - solitary confinement. Another prisoner was given a choice: give up the troublemaker blankets or leave alone in the night. His comfort agreed to donate only one person. The work of prison followed by about 50 observers, but she Zimbardo, who came to spend a few interviews with the participants of the experiment, outraged happening. The prison was closed in Stamford six days after being launched to the people. Many guards displayed a regret that the experiment ended prematurely.

What does that say about us?
People quickly accept social roles imposed on them and are so keen on his own authority, that the line of what is permitted in relation to the other they quickly erased quickly. Stanford experiment, participants were not sadists, they were the most ordinary people. Like perhaps many Nazi soldiers or overseers-torturers in Abu Ghraib prison. Higher education and a strong mental health did not prevent subjects to use violence to the people over whom they have authority.

5. Milgram Experiment (1961)
During the Nuremberg trials, many prisoners the Nazis justified their actions by saying that they were just following someone else's orders. Military discipline has not allowed them to disobey, even if they indicate they did not like. Interested in these circumstances Yale psychologist Stanley Milgram decided to see how far people can go in harm to others, if it is part of their duties.
Participants of the experiment scored for a small fee among the volunteers, none of whom is not serious experimenters. In the beginning, between the test and the specially trained actor allegedly played out the role of "student" and "teacher", and the subject always got the second part. Then aktera- "disciple" demonstrably tied to a chair with electrodes, and "teacher" gave introductory discharge current at 45 V and were taken to another room. There he sat at the generator, which was located 30 switches from 15 to 450 in increments of 15 V. Under the control of the experimenter - a man in a white coat, which was all the time in the room - "teacher" had to check memorizing a "disciple" of the set pairs of associations that were read to him in advance. For every mistake he received a sentence of discharge current. With each new bit error increased. Group switches have been signed. The final signature saying: "Danger: portable hard hit." The last two switches are outside groups were graphically separated and labeled marker «XXX». "Apprentice" answered with four buttons, his response indicated on the light board to the teacher. "Teachers" and shared his ward blank wall.

If the "teacher" hesitated when sentencing, the experimenter whose persistence increases with doubts, with the help of specially harvested phrases to convince him to continue. But he in no way could threaten the "teacher." Upon reaching the 300 volts from the room "disciples" were heard clearly hitting the wall, then "disciple" stopped to answer questions. Silence for 10 seconds, the experimenter interpreted as a wrong answer, and he asked to increase the power of impact. The following discharge 315 volts even more insistent repeated blows, after which the "student" ceased to respond to questions. Later, in another embodiment, the experiment room were not as badly soundproofed and the "student" pre-warned that his heart problems, and twice - in the ranks of 150 and 300 volts complained of feeling unwell. In the latter case, he refused to continue to participate in the experiment and began to scream loudly from behind the wall when he appointed new attacks. After 350, he stopped to show signs of life, continuing to receive the current level. The experiment was considered complete when the "teacher" three applied the maximum possible punishment.

65% of the subjects reached the last switch and did not stop until they were asked about this the experimenter. Only 12, 5% refused to continue as soon as the victim first knocked on the wall - all the others have continued to press the button even after from behind the wall to act ceased answers. Later, this experiment was carried out many times - in other countries and circumstances, to reward or not, with men's and women's groups - if the underlying basic conditions remain unchanged, at least 60% of the subjects reached the end of the scale - in spite of their own stress and discomfort. < br />
What does that say about us?
Even being strongly suppressed, contrary to all the experts, the vast majority of subjects were willing to spend over a stranger fatal electric shocks only because of the fact that close was a man in a white robe who told them to do it. Most people are surprisingly easy to go on about the authorities, even if this entails a devastating and tragic consequences.