This chapter brings the story of some of the most dramatic and influential experiments of psychological science. Did you think that psychologists are only good at listening? Think again. When it comes to a laboratory experiment, some psychologists also know how to perform
When it comes to psychology, 'experiment' is not the first word that comes to mind. Psychology, in the end, is not an 'exact science'. The psychologist cannot open the skull and examine the gears that turn inside - he can only observe, listen, ask questions, draw conclusions and take money.
This assumption, that psychology is not an experimental science, was common among the ancient Greek philosophers. Aristotle and his friends believed that psychology was part of philosophy. The researcher of the soul must walk back and forth in the courtyard of the academy with a stern look on his face, think deep thoughts about life and human nature and from this introspection draw conclusions about the soul. It was only at the end of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth century that we were taught by practical psychologists such as Ivan Pavlov (the one from the famous dog experiment) and John Watson that the mind can also be examined under laboratory conditions.
But here an interesting question arises. Experiments in laboratory conditions are all well and good, but can they also be applied to the real world? The answer is yes, and here is an excellent example of it.
On April 2004, XNUMX, the phone rang at the McDonald's branch in the town of Mount Washington, Kentucky. Donna Somers, deputy branch manager, was on duty. There was a man on the line who identified himself as a police officer. With him on the other line, the policeman said, is the branch manager and they are dealing with an important criminal case: one of the employees, a young woman named Louise, is suspected of having stolen a wallet from one of the customers.
The policeman gave Donna an accurate description of Louise, and there was no doubt that she was the suspect in the theft. In a firm and confident voice he ordered Donna to imprison Louise in the branch office until the local police forces arrived to arrest her. Donna did so, and the officer ordered her to strip Louise and search her clothes for the stolen purse. Louise protested strongly and claimed she had no idea what it was about, but Donna decided to obey the officer's instructions. She made Louise undress and took her clothes.
The minutes passed and the police cars had not yet stopped in front of the branch, but the policeman on the phone assured Donna that they were on their way. The deputy manager explained to him that she had to take care of customers, and the officer agreed that Donna's fiance - a guy named Walter Nix - would look after the suspect. Walter took the receiver from Donna and remained in the closed room with Louise.
This is where things started to get out of control. The policeman ordered Walter to force Louise to dance naked in front of him, and Walter willingly cooperated. Louise was terrified, crying and shaking alternately. Later, Walter forced her, on the policeman's instructions, to sit on his lap and kiss him - and finally perform oral sex on him. All the while, Donna was out of the office taking care of clients, so she wasn't aware of what was going on behind closed doors.
About three hours later, another employee of the branch happened to come to the place, and Donna asked him to help her and her fiancé supervise the arrest. The employee refused to cooperate - the whole thing sounded completely absurd to him. The local police station is a few hundred meters away from them - how can it be that it takes hours for the police to get to the place?
Suddenly flashing warning lights went on in Donna's mind. She finally decided to call the branch manager - when she remembered she was supposed to be on the other line talking to the policeman - and get further instructions from her. But it wasn't any conversation: she had been sleeping soundly for the last three hours. Donna realized that someone had been working on her. She picked up the phone to talk to the 'policeman' - but he immediately hung up. Donna was now in complete hysteria. She called the police - the real police, this time - and hurried to free the frightened Louise and give her back her clothes. The police arrived at the scene, arrested Walter Nix and took testimony from everyone involved.
As part of the investigation, it turned out that the cruel phone prank is one of dozens of identity pranks that have been done in the last ten years. In many cases the result was similar: those in charge of the shift raided and abused the so-called 'suspicious' workers, according to telephone instructions only. Is there something wrong with McDonald's hiring process, or are we just seeing the tip of a much bigger iceberg?
This was a question that also troubled Stanley Milgram, a psychologist who worked at Yale University in the United States in 1961. For him, this question arose following the opening of Adolf Eichmann's trial, here in Israel. Eichmann claimed that he was merely a small screw in the Nazi system and that he had no greater responsibility than the others regarding the extermination of hundreds of thousands of Jews. Milgram asked to examine this matter: Is it possible for perfectly normal and normal people to commit cruel and contrary acts - just because someone else tells them that's what they should do?
The experiment designed by Milgram for this purpose was extraordinarily chilling. He invited several dozen subjects, completely ordinary people, to participate in an experiment in the field of learning. The subject reached the basements of the university, where he met two other people. One was another subject like him - who was actually Milgram's dummy - and the other was a psychologist in a shiny lab coat and an official writing pad.
The psychologist explained the course of the experiment to the subject and the implanted actor: the goal was to test the theory that humans learn better under the influence of pain. One of them was the 'teacher' and the other the 'student'. The teacher had to teach the student to memorize pairs of words, and if the student failed the exam - give him an electric shock. The intensity of the electric shock increased as the student continued to fail the exam. In order for them to understand what it was all about, the subjects received a demonstration - a small electric shock that would make it clear to them that it is indeed a tangible and real pain. The dial that set the intensity of the electric shock was at fifteen volts, the lowest intensity. At the other end of the scale on the dial, 450 volts, there was an enlightening sign that clearly read: "Danger, serious electric shock!".
After that, a lottery was held (fake, the results of which were known in advance) in which the subject always won to be the teacher. The student moved to the other room, hidden from the teacher's eyes, and was attached to the electrodes. The experiment has begun. The subject, in the role of the teacher, begins by reading pairs of words into the student's ears, then tests him on them. The student made a mistake - and the teacher pressed the button. A cry of pain was heard from the next room.
At this point, most of the subjects shifted in their chairs uncomfortably and asked the student if he was okay. They didn't know it, but the cries were pre-recorded. The student replied that he was fine, just a little sore. The experiment continued.
In the following mistakes, the intensity of the electric shock increased to one hundred and fifty volts. The student's screams with each electrocution were blood-curdling, and he asked to stop the experiment. Here the psychologist intervenes who seems to be managing things - 'You must not stop,' he explains to the subject, 'this is a very important experiment, and the electric shocks are not harmful at all. Go on, please.'
Most of the subjects tried to argue and insist - but the experiment director insisted. No, you must not stop now - time is precious here, and there is no need to worry. Only a few insisted at this point to stop the experiment. The vast majority of subjects continued, even though it was abundantly clear that the student in the other room was in excruciating pain. With the dial at 350 volts, the student let out a blood curdling shriek and went silent. The psychologist instructs the subject to ignore this and continue the experiment.
Most of the subjects were now in a state of real emotional distress. Some cried, some laughed uncontrollably. Others got angry, sweated - but did not stop the experiment. All in all, twenty-six subjects out of forty - sixty-five percent of all subjects - give the student the maximum electric power, 450 volts.
Milgram performed additional versions of his experiment. When Milgram instructed that the subjects would not be the ones pressing the electric shock button themselves, but would only instruct another participant in the experiment when to press it - the compliance rates jumped to thirty-seven subjects out of forty.
What is the significance of Milgram's experiment, and what can be learned from it? It is impossible, of course, to assume that Eichmann was telling the truth when he claimed that on the whole he followed orders: it may very well have been merely an excuse to try and evade the death penalty. But at the same time, it's clear that people are ready to bow to authority, or to what appears to them to be authority - even if it's just a white coat or a military jacket, or even a firm voice through the telephone receiver in the case of Donna from McDonald's. Milgram thought that the reason for this was that the subject felt that he was only a tool for the fulfillment of another person's will, and therefore his sense of personal responsibility was pushed to the corner. Other psychologists gave additional explanations such as succumbing to the pressures of group hierarchy, or surrendering to someone who appears to be an expert in his field.
This experiment caused a tremendous uproar in the world of psychology and outside it, among the Jewish survivors of the Holocaust. If Milgram is right, then there is the possibility that Eichmann, Mengele and their friends are not a special case in human history. Treblinka and Auschwitz could have taken place, under different circumstances, in New York or Los Angeles. In Milgram's own words:
"Ordinary people, those who simply do their work without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents of terrible evil. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become clear to all and they are asked to perform actions that fundamentally go against the most basic foundations of morality, a relatively small number of people will muster the mental strength required to resist authority."
This article is taken from 'Making history!', a podcast about science, technology and history.
19 תגובות
I like employees. No matter what you do to them, you don't feel bad about yourself.
Really well written!
The experiment and its consequences actually demonstrate the effective way in which young biology students are "convinced" to perform experiments on animals: those who hesitate or express opposition "receive" a stiff response from the lecturers, who in turn will allow them to continue their path in the field or in their career by performing the experiments, and even find various justifications for it. This also explains why there are many students who later become researchers, who develop a certain numbness and imperviousness to the plight, suffering and suffering of the animals who have the good fortune to be the object on which the experiment is carried out.
This is an example of a process in which man dehumanizes another being, who previously had at least, if not an attitude of compassion towards him, then identification based on the values of non-violence that at least the civilized among us are educated on. The universities and colleges, therefore, are among the places that, in an unintentional way, I suppose dismantle this concept of value.
http://www.mayapro10.com/
Is it possible to explain in this way what happened with that mother from Jerusalem, who gave Elior Chen the grace to abuse her children?
creepy.
As soon as the "responsibility" falls on someone else, the psychologist in this case.
It is much easier for people to carry out "orders" that they would not have thought to carry out themselves.
Like anything, the company's conventions can also be abused, using a qualified person who represents the company (a police officer or a psychologist) to create an initial trust that makes the subject think that "the company" supports these orders.
I'm sure that the people who refused to continue the experiment were people who don't see all the current societal conventions as correct and this is reflected in their "courage" to refuse.
Certainly Eichmann, Mengele and their friends are not a special case in human history. Genocide and ethnic cleansing have been and will be, racism and xenophobia is a genetic trait that exists in many just like the trait of obedience to authority.
All we can do is educate so that the human behavior that is inherent in us in our genes is more restrained by critical thinking and at the same time remember that traits we inherit in our genes are what brought us here and it is not always right to deny them, at the same time a genetic trait that faithfully served our ancestors It won't necessarily be positive for us in the future either.
The whole point is that this is how things unfolded and people behave the way they do, the laws of physics are responsible for that.
A person must not do anything contrary to his "inner self", but in practice many people "disconnect" from themselves and become judges of someone in authority.
This also applies to an entire society where the people believe that the supreme authority, the government, knows better and is more moral and just like that entrusts their money to individuals or abandons their sons to war missions determined from above.
The Nazis are an extreme example of the mechanics of people believing, or alternatively, the difficulty of resisting what you are told if pressure is applied and the demands are repeated several times, the fear of standing alone with your opinions in front of an authority that presents itself as having more knowledge and power.
In addition, there is a desire in people to be loved, to be part of a group, and as a result many people give up on themselves. A person will say that he sees a circle in front of him instead of a square if there is absolute agreement around him that this is what exists in front of him.
It's shocking to think that all the comments are about Eichmann - we as Jews hear about the Holocaust and all our vision blurs - I just want to point out that if you've already decided to say your words on the net, you don't have to comment on the last section of the text because that's what you remember... but here a terrible rape is described, a horrific act that according to the scriptures Happened many times at McDonald's--simply horrifying and all my hope is that the culprits are found--and that the unbearable lightness will not continue--the grade in the article was also like that by the way
I agree, although a large part of the book Voluntary Hangmen is devoted to a somewhat convincing attempt to distinguish between the attitude of the Germans to the Jews and their attitude to other undesirable groups.
Goldhagen, the author of the book Voluntary Executioners, concentrates mainly on a long and graphic description of the exploits of the German murder squad, and supposedly proves through it the anti-Semitism inherent in the German people, but similar exploits can also be found in the actions of the Bolsheviks in Russia, and there it certainly cannot be excused by some age-old hatred of the "bourgeoisie" The international capitalist" which was supposedly the property of the Russian peasant for generations.
One original point that Goldhagen makes is the claim that "we never ask how the Aztec human sacrificers agreed to engage in their work", and we certainly do not invent psychological excuses that made the work easier for them, and this is because it is clear to us that in their society, which is drastically different from ours, the act was not seen as morally wrong, and therefore His perpetrators were not required to assuage any feelings of guilt. On the other hand, with the Germans, we first assume that the society in which they lived is more or less similar to modern society (and this despite no less fundamental differences that existed between us and them), and then invent various excuses that made it easier for them to break the moral barrier (obedience to authority, fear of punishment, bureaucratization of the murder, etc.), and this despite the fact that it is not at all clear that the problematic nature of the act was perceived in their minds, and in any case it is possible that these excuses will not be needed at all. The link between studies of obedience to authority and what was done in the Holocaust seems problematic on this background, because the motives in both cases may be completely different.
However, Goldhagen's final conclusion about murderous anti-Semitism as a unique characteristic of German society does not seem very plausible, and it is probably really a permanent human characteristic of any group of people that has undergone a process of dehumanization of its victims.
Psychologists are a classic example of sadists, they look for all kinds of sadistic experiments to prove claims they create
It doesn't matter what a person's origin is, in general (a large part of the world's population) people will enjoy being sadistic towards other people, they just need the excuse and there are endless examples in addition to the holocaust, you don't have to go far enough to hear stories of Magbanniks, or on the other hand from the Arabs, give A person has a uniform or authority and you will see how the majority (and it does not necessarily matter their education) will become sadists
Ohad:
But it is clear which of them is right.
The Germans also exterminated gypsies, the disabled and the retarded.
The Turks exterminated Armenians.
In Africa, a systematic extermination is carried out every two fortnights.
We all remember the massacres for which Milosevic was tried.
As soon as a person gives up critical thinking and accepts the dictates of a religion or other authority ex cathedra - the road to atrocities is paved and it doesn't matter if he is German, Hottentot or Jewish (about aliens, ask Hanan).
In this context, it is recommended to read Voluntary Hangmen in Hitler's Service, and Ordinary People, by two historians who studied the same mobile extermination unit in the German order police, and came to completely opposite conclusions on the question of the human capacity to commit atrocities, with one placing the blame on a special "destructive" anti-Semitism that existed Supposedly only among the German people, and the other claims that a fixed (and fairly high) percentage in every human society is capable of such acts, given the right circumstances.
An interesting experiment, which says a lot about human nature.
Human nature has many flaws, the choice is ultimately the individual's.
There are orders (even in the army) that must not be obeyed.
If the act done exceeds the definitions of law and conscience, the person must bear the price for his actions.
This was of course Eichmann's line of defense, but he had enough years to formulate it after the war. According to the article that was in the news not long ago, he convinced himself that he was only following orders after hiding in Europe until his escape to Argentina.
You forgot to add the criticism that calls against the results of this experiment with the Holocaust.
The review states that the trial was short, but the Holocaust lasted years.
And many of the Germans did not see the Jews as people with feelings that could be hurt, but as creatures that are worth less than dogs.
Introduction to Psychology…