Why do normal people sometimes act like mad people and commit acts that are contrary to their nature? What pushes decent people to meanness, clever to stupidity? Irrational behavior due to the influence of other people, according to social psychologists.
The bottom line is that the general impression about a person is transformed into conclusions about his particular characteristics: sympathetic means intelligent. Most Hollywood stars are very attractive in appearance, respectively, we believe that they are smart, friendly, fair. Many probably thought that it was easy to get rid of illusions, it was enough to turn on critical thinking. Social psychologist Richard Nisbett clearly showed that we do not control the thinking process.
To two groups of students, he offered different videos of the teacher’s performance with a Belgian accent. In both commercials, the man answered the same questions, but in the first speech he sounded warm and friendly, and in the second - cold and impassive. Each group was then asked to rate the teacher’s appearance, manner, and accent. Those who met with a good incarnation, called the person cute and charming, accent lovely. The conclusions of those who saw the tough version turned out to be the opposite.
Students from the first group could not explain why they put high scores. Most argued that successful performance did not affect the assessment of the specific qualities of the teacher. Opponents were confident that specific qualities formed a negative impression. This confirms that, to the delight of marketers and politicians, we do not notice how the halo effect works.
Psychologists Festinger and Karlsmith managed to uncover the reasons for the habit of justifying their thoughts and actions. They invited students to participate in a study of performance indicators. The experiment was based on deception. Each participant received a monotonous boring job. At the end of the task, the experimental subject was told the purpose of the experiment - to find out how expectations affect the workflow. Then they hinted that the others were absolutely delighted. Then the manager made an anxious look and asked him to help out. They say that the next one is about to come, but the laboratory technician who was supposed to prepare him has disappeared somewhere. Only things that paint as everything will be interesting, but for it will pay $ 1. The same trick was done with other participants, only some were promised $ 20. There was also a control group that was not involved in the machinations.
After the experiment, everyone was asked how interesting and enjoyable the tasks were. Almost the whole group admitted that it was boring. Those who were paid $ 20 rated the work as moderately interesting, and those who received $ 1 were praised. What happened?
Bribed participants experienced cognitive dissonance - a strong psychological discomfort caused by the contradictions between the real nature of the work and fake enthusiasm. But if the deception of those who earned a substantial amount can be considered more or less justified, then those who got $ 1 were forced to change their attitude to the situation and thereby justify their lies.
Most people sincerely consider themselves honest, but if there is a discrepancy between the internal settings, they unconsciously try to force out an unpleasant experience. Up to quickly adjusting the value system under their immoral behavior.
The theorist of intergroup conflicts Muzafer Sheriff selected a group of 11-year-old boys for a trip to the camp who were not familiar. They were divided into two groups - the Eagles and Gremuchniky. Psychologists played the role of educators. For the first week, the detachments lived in different sectors until they met. Slamming jokes, the researchers deliberately pushed the teams into the competition. The prize cup was awarded to Gremuchniky, and hostility ensued.
When the conflict culminated, the “tutors” announced that the vandals had damaged the drinking water reservoir. The warring parties had to unite and fix the damage. Over the next few days, new problems were thrown at them, which were also solved together. As a result, the feuds subsided, the enemies became friends. The Sheriff's theory has been confirmed: rivalry creates conflict, but disagreements disappear if a common goal emerges, which is achieved through joint efforts. Pay attention: hostility intentionally created and eliminated a third force - the leaders of the experiment, doesn’t this remind the hostility between families, corporations and countries, organized by manipulators?
Philip Zimbardo tried to answer the eternal questions about human nature: can a good man act like a scoundrel? Is there an edge beyond which absolute evil lurks?
Twenty-four volunteers ended up in a conditional prison, where they were divided into prisoners and guards. "Prisoners" conducted through the full procedure of detention. The “guards” were dressed in uniform and endowed with almost unlimited power, warning about the inadmissibility of physical violence.
On the second day, a riot broke out and the “guards” severely suppressed it without the orders of the leaders. After that, the "prisoners" were openly mocked. Zimbardo himself, portraying the warden, became so accustomed to the role that the “face” of the institution became more important to him than the emotional state of the people.
Soon, many "guards" showed sadistic inclinations, and most of the prisoners showed classic signs of a nervous breakdown. The experiment, designed for 14 days, was so dangerous that it had to be interrupted after 6 days.
Although the Stanford prison experiment was criticized for its unethical and negligible sampling, its value is undeniable. He showed how the situation can affect a person, break behavioral attitudes and destroy personality.
Psychologist Stanley Milgram wanted to understand why during the Second World War, ordinary people began to destroy their own kind in concentration camps. How far can a man go in cruelty if he is ordered to hurt his neighbor? In each experiment, three people participated: the administrator (he is the experimenter), the student (guest actor) and the teacher (experimental). "Pupil" memorized a long list of phrases, then he was tied to a chair with wires. The "teachers" who were supposed to test knowledge were planted in front of a stun machine. The “administrator” explained that a student’s mistakes should be punished with a current, and the discharge should be increased for a repeated miss. According to the “student” scenario, he was necessarily mistaken and received stronger blows, despite the cries and knock on the wall. If the "teacher" doubted, the "administrator" ordered to continue.
The car was not real, but 63% of the “teachers” pushed the switches, although they heard the “student” begging to stop. The test subjects were not sadists. Many suffered, fought hysterically, asked to release the victim, but almost no one dared to disobey orders. Milgram was the first to show how the behavior depends on the circumstances and how great is the authority of authority.
