10 experiments famous (and incorrect) psychology
What have been the most controversial experiments in the history of research in psychology? Mental Floss has published an article in which they were selected 10 famous experiments that could not be made today because unethical.
These experiments go against the guidelines of the code of conduct and ethical principles drawn up by the American Psychological Association, that the regulations protect the confidentiality of such statements or the physical and mental health of the subjects participating in an experimental design.
1. The experiment of little Albert
John Watson was the founder of behaviorism (1913). In a nutshell, according to the behaviorist model man is a complex set of associations between environmental stimuli and behavioral responses: these connections are the only object of scientific study for the psychologist. With classical conditioning indicates the experimental procedure by which a stimulus chosen by the investigator (called "conditional") is presented simultaneously with a natural urge ("unconditional") to modify the behavior of the subject.
At Johns Hopkins University in 1920, John B. Watson wanted to demonstrate how human emotions were closely tied to environmental stimuli. In the experiment, little Albert who was 9 years old was particularly fond of white mice. Watson joined the appearance of a white mouse the unpleasant sound of a hammer pounding on a metal surface. At the end of the experimental sessions the child was crying at the sight of a white rodent and even to stimuli associated with this color, such as white beard of Santa Claus.
The experiment received much criticism, both for the conduct cynical towards an infant (diagnosed hydrocephalus) and because the baby was not desensitized by phobia experience. (The child died at the age of 6 years for reasons not related to the treatment of Watson).
The experiment received much criticism, both for the conduct cynical towards an infant (diagnosed hydrocephalus) and because the baby was not desensitized by phobia experience. (The child died at the age of 6 years for reasons not related to the treatment of Watson).
2. Asch's experiment on conformism.
Solomon Asch studied the phenomenon of conformism and in one of his most famous experiments, participants had to estimate the length of some lines. Assigned participants to a group of subjects who were actually agree with the researcher, who decided in the same way the measurement and then at the end they gave the wrong answer. Thirty-seven of the 50 participants conformed to the incorrect choice of the group despite the evidence of the facts.
Asch "cheated" because the participants did not ask for explicit consent for the experimental treatment reserved for them and his experiment could not be replicated today in this manner.
3. Effect "spectator"
The experiment on the effect the spectator leaves no doubt bewildered. Today it would probably be considered unethical. It was developed by John Darley and Bibb Latane in 1968 to understand why many eye-witnesses do not intervene during a crime. The idea was born after the experimental case of Kitty Genovese, a young woman killed in a quarter for New York. Despite at least 38 witnesses had caught a glimpse of the scene, none of them intervened to prevent it.
The two researchers conducted experiments that reproduced the dynamics of the murder of the young woman, for example, was testing the behavior of rescue if the person was receiving an emergency call, alone or in the company of other people.
For example, the subject received a call of a person (in fact an employee of the researcher) who, being in the lower floor, begging for help to an epileptic seizure. As expected, if the subject was only were more likely to intervene, however, if he was with the probability of distress decreased dramatically. This behavior was explained with the concepts of diffusion of responsibility and pluralistic ignorance.
Solomon Asch studied the phenomenon of conformism and in one of his most famous experiments, participants had to estimate the length of some lines. Assigned participants to a group of subjects who were actually agree with the researcher, who decided in the same way the measurement and then at the end they gave the wrong answer. Thirty-seven of the 50 participants conformed to the incorrect choice of the group despite the evidence of the facts.
Asch "cheated" because the participants did not ask for explicit consent for the experimental treatment reserved for them and his experiment could not be replicated today in this manner.
3. Effect "spectator"
The experiment on the effect the spectator leaves no doubt bewildered. Today it would probably be considered unethical. It was developed by John Darley and Bibb Latane in 1968 to understand why many eye-witnesses do not intervene during a crime. The idea was born after the experimental case of Kitty Genovese, a young woman killed in a quarter for New York. Despite at least 38 witnesses had caught a glimpse of the scene, none of them intervened to prevent it.
The two researchers conducted experiments that reproduced the dynamics of the murder of the young woman, for example, was testing the behavior of rescue if the person was receiving an emergency call, alone or in the company of other people.
For example, the subject received a call of a person (in fact an employee of the researcher) who, being in the lower floor, begging for help to an epileptic seizure. As expected, if the subject was only were more likely to intervene, however, if he was with the probability of distress decreased dramatically. This behavior was explained with the concepts of diffusion of responsibility and pluralistic ignorance.
4. The experiment of Stanley Milgram
The experiments of Stanley Milgram are famous for the incredible results that came studying the degree of people's obedience to the instructions of an authority figure such as a scientific researcher (you can find in this article an analysis).
In the experimental situation, the participant administered to a person (actually an actor) a test and if you received an incorrect response was to administer a small electric shock. At each subsequent wrong answer, the intensity of the electric current increased. The subject was required to move forward by executing despite the painful effects that derive from the person who gave a wrong answer during the test.
Milgram was shocked by the fact that the majority of the experimental subjects following orders despite the fact he knew to administer an electric shock when the voltage seriously put at risk the lives of those who received the painful stimulus. Milgram varied the conditions of the experimental sesssioni, trying to analyze whether such a view of the person suffering might affect the conduct of the experimental subject. Indeed, before a session, the subjects who were administered the punishment did try on their skin shock, but the results did not change significantly.
Although today these experiments are considered clear examples of hypothetical deception and psychological damage, continue to be replicated and the experimental confirmations matter of considerable concern sull'imperscrutabile psychological power of authority.
In the experimental situation, the participant administered to a person (actually an actor) a test and if you received an incorrect response was to administer a small electric shock. At each subsequent wrong answer, the intensity of the electric current increased. The subject was required to move forward by executing despite the painful effects that derive from the person who gave a wrong answer during the test.
Milgram was shocked by the fact that the majority of the experimental subjects following orders despite the fact he knew to administer an electric shock when the voltage seriously put at risk the lives of those who received the painful stimulus. Milgram varied the conditions of the experimental sesssioni, trying to analyze whether such a view of the person suffering might affect the conduct of the experimental subject. Indeed, before a session, the subjects who were administered the punishment did try on their skin shock, but the results did not change significantly.
Although today these experiments are considered clear examples of hypothetical deception and psychological damage, continue to be replicated and the experimental confirmations matter of considerable concern sull'imperscrutabile psychological power of authority.
5. The esperiment of Harlow
Harry Harlow in 1950 has carried out experiments to assess whether the need to satisfy primary needs such as food was the real impetus that drives the behavior of the puppy's attachment to the mother. Using cubs monkeys Resus, and put them in a cage from which they could achieve two moms fake, made of a metal which provided food, while the other only fur-lined whose sole purpose would be to provide "warmth" (for a deepening click here).
With great surprise, the researchers found that the monkeys spent the majority of the time with his mother "lined" rather than with the metal dispenser of food (only one hour per day). Even when they were frightened, puppies preferred to head for the mother covered in fur.
Harlow's experiments were terminated because they were against the rules sanctioning the mistreatment of animals (scares procured or separations from their mothers). Even today's experiments that reproduce the experimental design of Harlow decided to meet the ostracism of animal welfare organizations.
6. Sense of helplessness
The group of researchers led by Martin Seligman studied the learned helplessness (learned helplessness). In the experiment a few dogs were placed in a cage divided by a barrier that could be overcome. By administering an electric shock dogs could avoid schok jumping in the other half of the cage. But if in a state, in another group, the dog received no shock that he could avoid it, when it was placed inside the cage with the barrier beyond which he could escape the painful stimulus, did not try to escape. She cried and stood still, because he had previously learned helplessness chased to repeated exposure to painful stimuli uncontrollable in which every attempt to avoid them was useless.
As is apparent brutality of the experimental animals, the results have helped to provide important evidence about the processes that lead to major psychopathology such as depression and dissociative glistati (from reading here).
7. Experiment of camping
Muzafer Sherif devised the experiment of camping in the summer of 1954 in order to investigate the formation of groups in the light of the conflicts, observing how they formed spontaneously among children who do not know each other before entering into a summer camp.
After a period of observation in which the children of couples forming friendships, these were specifically divided to create two groups that often ended up in conflict for pure competition in various activities. When the researcher imposed a purpose that could only be achieved if the two groups were combined, the children acted in a short time as if they were part of a single indivisible and cooperative group.
Today, this experiment was deemed unethical because Sherif has deceived the children without having explained clearly that they were participating in an experiment in social psychology. Also not even asked the informed consent of the participants.
8. The Monster Study
In 1939, Wendell Johnson in an attempt to figure out what was causing the balbuziecercò to find out if it could be induced in healthy subjects or deleted in individuals who stammered through a certain kind of teaching. Dividing the sample of 22 children in two groups, one would receive a teaching praising their command of the language, but the other treatment applied directly suggested that the children have problems in language.
None of the second group developed stuttering, but the experimental design was highly questionable from an ethical standpoint, and because 12 children from the orphanage were chosen both because the experiment procured in many negative psychological effects on their children's self-esteem (you can here on wikipedia read more articulate an account of the experimental sessions). Not surprisingly, colleagues affibiarono the nickname Monster (Monster) in the experiment of Johnson.
9. Learners with blue eyes against students with brown eyes
Jane Elliott was not a teacher but an American psychologist known for his anti-racist activism. In 1968, he wanted to demonstrate with his experiment that the color of your eyes could determine the positive preference toward the student teachers at the expense of those who did not have that color. By dividing the sample into two groups, in fact, blue eyes and brown eyes, called the one superior to the other citing bogus scientific theories. It took only one day because the group "superior" behaved badly towards the bottom that showed more insecure behaviors. The differential treatment, encouraging in one case, humiliating another, created a vicious cycle that fed itself this kind of Pygmalion effect.
The experiments, repeated in the next two years, attracted much criticism for the immoral choice to treat the kids in a discriminatory manner than others by deception and without, inter alia, to ask for agreement. Although some participants after they have spoken as an important test of their lives
10. The experiment of Zimbardo
In 1971, Philip Zimbardo conducted the famous Stanford prison experiment. Recruited 24 male subjects from a college (paid $ 15 a day to participate in an experiment on prison life), in good mental and physical health, and divided them randomly into two groups: one was that of the prisoners, the other guards. They were then conducted in the basement of a department of Stanford University, where he had served a prison. The goal was to recreate the realistic eperienza of prison life.
The prisoners were wearing prison uniforms, were "spidocchiati" and were given standard information about their life in prison. The guards were given some general instructions including that of not being violent towards the prisoners, but only to control them. The first day passed without incident, but the prisoners already the second day ribbellarono and barricading themselves in their cells ignored the guards. An attitude that probably instigated the subsequent aggressive behavior of the latter, which separated the "good" from "bad" executing punishments such as push-ups and using the isolation cells or a public humiliation for the imprisoned rebels.
Stanford University Hoover Tower 2 300x225 10 famous experiments (and incorrect) psychology
"In just a few days, the guards became sadistic, while the prisoners manifested signs of depression and extreme stress." They were provided two weeks of time to continue the experiment, but it ended much earlier when Christina Maslach, the future wife of Zimbardo on the fifth day of the experiment visited the prison and said, "I think it's terrible what they are doing to these guys. "Zimbardo has described those days in The Lucifer Effect. It becomes bad? and in 2012 was awarded the Gold Medal Award for Life Achievement in the Science of Psychology.
In 1971, Philip Zimbardo conducted the famous Stanford prison experiment. Recruited 24 male subjects from a college (paid $ 15 a day to participate in an experiment on prison life), in good mental and physical health, and divided them randomly into two groups: one was that of the prisoners, the other guards. They were then conducted in the basement of a department of Stanford University, where he had served a prison. The goal was to recreate the realistic eperienza of prison life.
The prisoners were wearing prison uniforms, were "spidocchiati" and were given standard information about their life in prison. The guards were given some general instructions including that of not being violent towards the prisoners, but only to control them. The first day passed without incident, but the prisoners already the second day ribbellarono and barricading themselves in their cells ignored the guards. An attitude that probably instigated the subsequent aggressive behavior of the latter, which separated the "good" from "bad" executing punishments such as push-ups and using the isolation cells or a public humiliation for the imprisoned rebels.
Stanford University Hoover Tower 2 300x225 10 famous experiments (and incorrect) psychology
"In just a few days, the guards became sadistic, while the prisoners manifested signs of depression and extreme stress." They were provided two weeks of time to continue the experiment, but it ended much earlier when Christina Maslach, the future wife of Zimbardo on the fifth day of the experiment visited the prison and said, "I think it's terrible what they are doing to these guys. "Zimbardo has described those days in The Lucifer Effect. It becomes bad? and in 2012 was awarded the Gold Medal Award for Life Achievement in the Science of Psychology.
taken from www. carmelodimauro.com
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento