Experimental steps: When Nazi followers who slaughtered Jews were prosecuted in the Nuremberg trial, many defendants' defenses seemed to revolve around the argument that "I am not the real murderer" and thought that "in fact, I was just obeying orders". Therefore, Myhrgren, a psychologist at Yale University, hopes to test subjects' willingness to obey the orders of authoritative figures. Maybe you think he just asked the subject? Oh, that won't do; This is not cruel enough.

Contrary to what you think, in the experiment organized by Meirgren, the subject was told that he would play the role of "teacher", and all he had to do was give another subject a memory test in the next room. In fact, the "other subject" was forged by the experimenter, and all this was just a game arranged by Meyer Glenn.

The subject was told that as long as the other person gave an incorrect answer, he would press a button and the controller would shock the "student" next door. In addition, there will be a staff member wearing a laboratory uniform to guide and supervise (it must be pointed out that there was no real electric shock, of course, the subjects did not know about it).

The subjects were also told that the initial electric shock in the experiment was 45 volts, and the voltage value would increase every time the answer was wrong. Every time the subject presses the button, the "student" will scream in the next room and ask the subject to stop the test.

So, can you predict how the experiment will go?

Experimental results: When the experiment reached a certain level (such as 330 volts electric shock), many subjects said they began to feel uncomfortable and questioned whether to continue the experiment. However, every time they asked for a time-out, the staff in lab uniforms encouraged them to continue. After being assured that they would not bear any responsibility, most subjects chose to continue, raise the electric shock voltage and give the victim electric shocks again and again. Some subjects laughed nervously after hearing the screams of "students"; Because when the current reaches another person's body but there is nothing he can do, I am afraid that laughter is the best medicine.

Eventually, the "students" next door will start banging on the wall in pain, begging to have their hearts examined. After the electric shock continues to rise, the sound from the "student" room will suddenly disappear, suggesting that he is dead or unconscious. If you have to guess, what percentage of the subjects will continue to shock afterwards?

In the case that "students" may have fallen into coma or died, about 6 1% to 66% of the subjects choose to continue the experiment until the maximum voltage of electric shock reaches 450 volts. Repeated experimental studies show the same result: as long as the laboratory staff think there is no problem, the subjects will unconsciously cause pain to an innocent stranger.

Most subjects will not question or object until the electric shock reaches 300 volts, and 0% of the subjects have asked to stop the experiment before (please note that in some cases, the voltage of 100 volts is enough to kill people).

Result analysis: You may prefer to think of yourself as a defender of free thinking, but in the final analysis, the key lies in whether the idea of "that person" is enough for you to stick to it, because the "that person" behind you will always make you stick to those ideas, even if it is only a person wearing a lab uniform-imagine what would happen if he wore a uniform or a badge?

Charles Xie Lidan and Richard King made further experiments on this, but the requirement for the subjects became that once the puppy misbehaves, it should be electrocuted. Unlike Milgram's experiment, this electric shock is real. The experimental results show that 20 of the 26 subjects have reached the highest voltage value.

Almost as high as 80%. Imagine walking in a shopping mall-80% of people around you are willing to torture a puppy to the extreme, as long as a person in a lab uniform asks them to do so.

Experiment 2: Stanford Prison (197 1 year)

Experimental Steps: Psychologist philip zimbardo wants to study how prison life affects police and prisoners. This sounds stupid enough; The question is, will this be a problem?

Zimbardo transformed the basement of psychology department of Stanford University into a mock prison. Volunteers who came only through newspaper advertisements all passed the physical health and psychological stability test, which is the key factor in screening prison subjects. These subjects are all male college students and randomly assigned to 12 prison guards and 12 prison inmates. Zimbardo himself wanted to participate in the experiment and appointed himself as the director of the prison. This mock prison experiment lasted only two weeks.

Yes, there will be absolutely no problem.

Experimental results: It took each subject a day or so to adapt to this life and began to become crazy. Only the next day, the prisoners made trouble in this artificial prison, set up obstacles in their cells with beds and laughed at the guards. Seeing this situation, the prison guard seems to have found an excellent excuse to shoot the prisoner (in fact, it is replaced by a fire extinguisher). Hey, why not?

From then on, Stanford prison was really a ghost, and riots were staged day after day in this hell. Some prison guards began to force prisoners to sleep naked on the concrete floor and threatened to restrict the use of the bathroom as a privilege (a privilege that is often denied). They forced prisoners to undergo humiliating training and clean toilets by hand.

Incredibly, when "prisoners" were told that they had a chance to get parole, but their application for parole was rejected, they didn't simply ask to stop the damn experiment. Remember, they were never imprisoned for legal reasons. This is just a role-playing experiment. This means that they will continue to sit naked on their own excrement with bags on their heads.

More than 50 non-experimenters participated in observing and paying attention to the prison, but the moral trial was never questioned until zimbardo's girlfriend Christina Maslach protested strongly. Only six days later, zimbardo terminated the experiment (several "prison guards" expressed disappointment). If you want to praise Marcella as the only rational person in this damn experiment, then you should also know that she later married zimbardo who planned this experiment.

Results Analysis: This result shows that playing the role of prisoner is premeditated resistance, while playing the role of prison guard begins to become violent. Is it because the prison guards who play the role of being tortured by riots are all assholes, and they just push people around without asking why? Scientific research shows that if the roles were reversed, you would do the same.

As it proves, it is usually because we are afraid of the other side's counterattack that we try our best to torture our fellow human beings. When we have absolute power over some people, or when our superiors write a bad check, the bare "pyramid" of Abu Ghraib prison will abide by it. Hehe, if this is a group of hippie college students during the Vietnam War, then this kind of thing will definitely happen to you.

Experiment 3, bystander indifference experiment (1968)

Experimental steps: In a case where a woman was killed in 1964, news reports said that 38 people at the scene witnessed or heard the case, but did not take any action. John Darley and Bibb Latane want to test whether people are unwilling to help in a group environment.

The two psychologists invited some volunteers to take part in the experiment. They told the subjects that because the meeting may involve extremely personal content (such as discussing the size of genitals), everyone will be separated in different rooms and only use walkie-talkies to communicate with each other.

In the interview, one participant will pretend to be suddenly ill, which can of course be heard by other subjects. We are not completely sure that the message conveyed to them by this phone call is that the other person is ill, but we can be sure that words such as "Oh, I have a seizure" will be heard by the subjects.

The experimental results show that when the subjects think that they are the only person who participates in the discussion except the sick person, 85% of the subjects will leave the room for help when the other person pretends to be sick. It is not easy to have a very private conversation with another person (similarly, it is likely to mention the size of reproductive organs, etc. In contrast, being forced to talk to myself for the rest of the time is just a kind of sadness. But in any case, 85% people are willing to help; This result is not bad, right?

But the experiment is not over yet. When the experimental environment changed and the participants thought that there were four other people participating in the discussion, only 365,438+0% of them sought help after the other person became ill, and the rest of the participants guessed who else would take care of this person. So to some extent, the word "the more the better" has lost its true meaning, and the more correct expression should be "the more people die" (the more people, the higher the probability of death).

Results Analysis: It can be inferred that in an emergency, if you are the only one around the client, your motivation to participate in the rescue will be greatly increased, and you will feel that you are 100% responsible for this matter. However, when you are only one of 10 people, you will only feel 10% responsibility; The problem is that everyone else only feels 10% responsible.

This provides an explanation for our previous example. If the injured woman is lying on the deserted highway, the driver who turns a blind eye may be more willing to stop and help. Off-topic, of course, they may prefer to ignore it, because they know that no one is watching (this is different from the subjects in this experiment, because at least the subjects know that someone is recording and analyzing their behavior).

Perhaps this problem can also be attributed to the rationality that we can make excuses for ourselves. We will say, "Obviously, there will always be someone on this road to save her." Or "obviously, some people will do something to protect the environment" or "obviously, sharks will always be full, so they won't eat them to some extent". We just need to make some excuses for our inaction.

Experiment 4: Good Samaritan Experiment (1973)

Experimental steps: If you haven't heard the biblical story Good Samaritan, here is a brief introduction: A Jew was badly beaten by a robber, lying on the side of the road, and neither the priest nor the Levites paid any attention to him. Only a passing Samaritan kindly helped him, so it can be seen that the standard for distinguishing people is people's heart, not their status. Therefore, psychologists john darley and C Daniel batson hope to test the influence of religious belief on helping others.

Their research object is a group of seminary students, half of whom tell the story of "Good Samaritan" and let them preach in another seminary, while the other half let them preach employment opportunities in the same place.

As an additional variable reference, subjects are required to arrive at the sermon site at different times, so some of them may seem to be in a hurry on the road.

At the same time, on the way to the designated place, the subjects would pass by a passerby who fell in an alley and looked in urgent need of help. We may think that Dali and batson are just testing some random phenomena of helping others, but the research data shows that poor passers-by are arranged in advance and show great fidelity.

The experimental results show that compared with those students who are going to give a speech on employment opportunities, students who are given the story of "Good Samaritan" do not give more help because of the educational significance of fables. What really matters is how hurried they are on the road.

In fact, if the time is short, only 65,438+00% students will stop to provide assistance, even though the theme they are about to preach is how important it is to stop and give assistance. However, to be fair, if you are late for class, will the professor believe the excuse that "I had to stop to help an injured passenger on the way"? Probably not, unless you can show the man's bloody shirt as evidence.

Result analysis: As we like to joke, an anti-gay male congressman may be found to be in love with a man, and former US Vice President Al Gore, who calls for environmental protection, may own a mansion with high energy consumption. ...

..... In fact, we ordinary people are as hypocritical as politicians. After all, it is obviously easier to talk about Kan Kan in front of a group of listeners and help strangers than to face a stinking tramp who is still bleeding. Therefore, even if we point out their hypocrisy, it is difficult to hide our hypocrisy.

If you think these findings are limited to hypocritical seminary students, please watch the news. Remember a few years ago, the camera caught at least 12 cars refusing to pick up an injured woman lying on the side of the road?

Like these students, they always feel compelled. The driver may feel lucky because he just turned a detour and passed her, instead of squashing her like in the car accident tragedy.

Experiment 5: ASHI's conformity experiment (1953)

Experimental Steps: Psychologist Solomon Asch has done a series of studies to verify the conformity effect, and the experimental results can make everyone depressed.

The subjects were told that they would have an eye test with another group, and then they would show some pictures and ask them to answer some very simple and obvious questions. The trap of this test is that there are other experimental collaborators in the room besides the subjects themselves, and they will give obviously wrong answers as required. Then, when most people make the most obvious retarded mistakes, will the subjects give different results from others?

Experimental results: The "difficult questions" that the subjects were asked to answer can refer to the following figure.

All they have to do is point out which line segment on the right is as long as the line segment on the left. You see, Ash's problem is far from the difficulty of designing the next generation space station. To tell the truth, a person who can answer this question about the length of a line segment incorrectly, unless you took two doses of LSD that morning and rubbed it on your eyes (of course, this will lead to other more terrible "experiments", so we will skip this).

Unfortunately, 32% of the subjects gave the same wrong answer when they saw the other three people give the wrong answer, even though the difference in line segment length reached several inches. The proverb that three men make a tiger has undoubtedly been verified.

Result analysis: Imagine how much the proportion of 32% will rise if the answer to this question is not so clear and obvious. Even if we don't understand a joke, we are more willing to laugh with most people; When we find that we are not recognized by most people, we are more inclined to doubt our opinions. The competitive pressure of peers experienced in primary school and the encouragement of "being brave" seem to have disappeared.

"Well, I should be a maverick, which is good." Most of us always say that. Of course, it is also each of us. Next, we will observe how other "lonely people" do it. ...

..... and then, make sure you do exactly the same as them.