Why, when talking about the potential risks of foods or substances in terms of causing life-threatening diseases, scientists always point out that research cannot be considered 100% correct? The answer is simple: because ethical principles forbid conducting such experiments on humans, so laboratory mice are mainly exposed to harmful effects.
However, science was not always good with the ethical side. The perfect illustration is terrible experiments on the human psyche, which led to consequences that, obviously, the scientists themselves did not expect.
Milgram's experiment
Milgram's experiment continued to shock researchers and the general public from the time it was originally carried out until its “lightweight” versions were repeated in new research and even on talk shows.
First conducted by Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram back in 1963, it was motivated by the behavior of good German citizens who, during the Nazi years, took part in the extermination of millions of innocent people in concentration camps. Or, more precisely, by the statement of the Gestapo officer Otto Adolf Eichmann, responsible for the mass extermination of Jews, who at the trial said that he was "just keeping order."
Can people do such terrible things when they have unlimited power? This question prompted Milgram to launch a series of experiments. The essence of each of them was that one of the participants (“student”) had to memorize pairs of words from the list until he remembered each pair, and the other participant (“teacher”) was obliged to check it, punishing the mistake more and more powerful current discharge. The roles of “student” and “teacher” were distributed by lot.
Promotional video:
The “teachers”, of course, knew that the wrong answer to each next question would cause the “student” even more pain. And since the two participants were in adjacent rooms, the “teacher” could hear his “student” screaming. In fact, there were no electric shocks, and the man in the next room was an actor. But Milgram really wanted to know how far a person was willing to go, if allowed to do it.
The results turned out to be shocking: if initially it was assumed that only 0.1% of “teachers” would reach the peak point - a discharge that could cripple a “student”, then in the end about 2/3 of “teachers” continued to press the button, even when the “student” seemed to be on the edge.
Experiment "Little Albert"
Don't be fooled by the charming name, because there is nothing charming about this experiment. After a successful experimental series of Russian physiologist Ivan Pavlov demonstrating the formation of conditioned reflexes in dogs, in 1920, Professor John Watson of Johns Hopkins University and his graduate student Rosalie Rayner wanted to see if emotional reactions be caused in humans.
The participant in the experiment was a 9-month-old child, named in the documents "Albert B", whose reactions were tested by showing him a white rat, a rabbit, a monkey and masks. Initially, the boy did not experience any fear of any of the objects shown to him.
Then all these things were shown to Albert again, with the only difference that as soon as a rat appeared in front of the boy's eyes, Watson knocked on a metal pipe with a stick. And this knock, which is logical, frightened the child, so that he began to cry. Further, any repeated demonstration of the white rat, even if its display was not accompanied by blows, caused the boy to panic and obviously negatively react to the presence of the object.
By the way, it was only in 2010 that the American Psychological Association (APA) managed to establish the identity of “Albert B”. It turned out to be Douglas Merritte, the son of a local nurse who was paid just $ 1 to take her child into the study.
Stanford Prison Experiment
Another truly terrifying experiment that's legendary enough to be reflected in popular culture. He turned out to be unpredictable, unsettling and notorious. So notorious that a memorial plaque was erected at the site of the experiment.
Conducted in 1971 at Stanford University by the American psychologist Philip Zimbardo on behalf of the US Navy, the experiment was to establish what caused the constant friction between the guards and inmates in its correctional facilities. Simply put, a group of researchers had to find out how an ordinary person reacts to restrictions on freedom and prison conditions, and how strong an influence the imposed social role has on people.
Having organized a "temporary prison" in one of Stanford's basements, a group of physically strong and psychologically stable students was sent there, who were divided into "prisoners" and "guards." The researchers disappeared from the volunteers' eyes, noting that the participants in the experiment should act as if this was a real prison. But then scientists could hardly imagine what would happen next.
After a relatively calm first day, a riot of "prisoners" began on the second day. The "guards" volunteered overtime to quell the riot using fire extinguishers. Later, the "guards" divided the "prisoners" into two buildings - good and bad - and pitted them against each other, appealing that there were informants in their ranks.
Within a few days, the sadistic authoritarianism of the "guards" only strengthened, and the "prisoners" began to drop out of the experiment. The first student left after 36 hours, suffering, as noted, from "acute emotional disturbances, disorganized thinking, uncontrollable screaming and rage." Soon, several other "prisoners" showed symptoms of extreme psychological distress, so the experiment was terminated six days later, a week earlier than planned.
Once again, the study's findings were unsettling: even good people can do terrible things when given unlimited power.
Monstrous experiment
The case when the name speaks for itself. Back in the late 1930s, speech pathology researcher at the University of Iowa Wendell Johnson concluded that he most likely began to stutter because one day a teacher told him he was stuttering. Prophecy or the Impact of Value Judgments? Assuming the latter was to blame, Johnson decided to test this with the help of his graduate student Mary Taylor, who led the study.
For the experiment, 22 children from an orphanage were selected, who were ideally suited due to the lack of an authority figure in life. The children were divided into two groups: the first was constantly told that their speech was excellent and their reading abilities were amazing, the second - that they had obvious problems with speech and stuttering could hardly be avoided.
As a result, the self-esteem of the children from the second group fell noticeably, in addition, they developed a strong lack of confidence in speech and even signs of stuttering. Despite the fact that at the end of the experiment, stuttering disappeared, most of the orphans remained withdrawn and uncommunicative.
Of course, each case is different, but Wendell Johnson was definitely wrong. This kind of feedback can exacerbate stuttering that has already begun, experts say, but cannot “trigger” it. According to the NHS, the roots of this correlation can be found in neurological and developmental problems in the child.
MARINA LEVICHEVA