Why do we do stupid things? 10 psychological experiments

1. When the mind is a mystery: the halo effect

The bottom line is that the general impression of a person is transformed into conclusions about his particular features: cute means smart. Most Hollywood stars are very attractive in appearance, so we believe that they are smart, friendly, and fair. Many probably thought that it is easy to get rid of illusions, it is enough to turn on critical thinking. Social psychologist Richard Nisbett has demonstrated that we are not in control of our thought process.

To two groups of students, he offered different videos of a teacher speaking in a Belgian accent. In both videos, the man answered the same questions, but in the first it sounded warm and friendly, and in the second it was cold and dispassionate. Each group was then asked to rate the teacher’s appearance, mannerisms, and accent. Those who met with a kind incarnation called the person handsome and charming, the accent is cute. The conclusions of those who saw the hard version turned out to be the opposite.

Students from the first group could not explain why they gave high scores. Most argued that a successful presentation did not affect the assessment of specific qualities of the teacher. Opponents were sure 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.

2. Cognitive dissonance: we lie to ourselves

Psychologists Festinger and Carlsmith managed to uncover the reasons for the habit of justifying their thoughts and actions. They invited students to participate in a performance measurement study. The experiment was based on deception. Each participant received a monotonous boring job. At the end of the task, the subject was told the purpose of the experiment – to find out how expectations affect the workflow. Then it was hinted that the rest were simply delighted. Then the leader made a preoccupied look and asked him to help out. Like, the next one is about to come, but the laboratory assistant who was supposed to prepare him disappeared somewhere. The only thing to do is to paint how everything will be interesting, and they will pay $ 1 for it. 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 fraud.

After the experiment, everyone was asked how interesting and enjoyable the tasks were. Almost the entire group admitted that it was boring. Those who were paid $20 rated the work as moderately interesting, while those who received $1 praised it. What happened?

The bribed participants experienced cognitive dissonance—a strong psychological discomfort caused by contradictions between the real nature of the work and false delights. But if the deception of those who earned a solid 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 internal attitudes, they unconsciously try to force out an unpleasant experience. Up to the point of quickly adjusting the value system to their immoral behavior.

3. War, peace and power: what happened at the summer camp?

Muzafer Sherif, a theorist of intergroup conflicts, selected a group of 11-year-old boys who did not know each other for a trip to the camp. They were divided into two groups – Eagles and Rattlers. Psychologists acted as educators. For the first week, the squads lived in different sectors until they met. There were sharp jokes, the researchers deliberately pushed the teams in the competition. The prize cup was awarded to the Rattlers, and a feud ensued.

When the conflict reached its climax, the “educators” announced that the vandals had damaged the drinking water tank. The warring parties had to unite and fix the damage. In the next few days, new problems were thrown at them, which were also solved together. As a result, the strife subsided, the enemies became friends. Sheriff’s theory was confirmed: rivalry breeds conflict, but disagreements disappear if there is a common goal that is achieved by joint efforts. Please note: hostility was deliberately created and eliminated by a third force – the leaders of the experiment, does this not resemble the enmity between families, corporations and countries, arranged by manipulators?

4 Dark Side Of The Soul: The Stanford Prison Experiment

Philip Zimbardo tried to answer the eternal questions about human nature: can a good person behave like a scoundrel? Is there a line beyond which absolute evil lurks?

Twenty-four volunteers ended up in a conditional prison, where they were divided into prisoners and guards. The “prisoners” were put through a full detention procedure. The “guards” were dressed in uniforms and endowed with almost unlimited power, warning against physical violence.

On the second day, a riot broke out and the “guards” severely suppressed it without orders from the leaders. After that, they began to openly mock the “prisoners”. Zimbardo himself, who portrayed the head of the prison, got used to the role so much that the “face” of the institution became more important to him than the emotional state of people.

Soon, many of the “guards” showed sadistic tendencies, and most of the prisoners showed the classic signs of a nervous breakdown. The experiment, designed for 14 days, turned out to be so dangerous that it had to be interrupted after 6 days.

Although the Stanford Prison Experiment has been criticized for being unethical and having a negligible sample size, its value is undeniable. He showed how a situation can affect a person, break behavioral attitudes and destroy a personality.

5. We were just following orders: obedience to authority

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? Three people participated in each experiment: an administrator (aka experimenter), a student (guest actor) and a teacher (subject). The “apprentice” memorized a long list of phrases, then he was tied to a chair with wires. The “teacher”, who was supposed to test knowledge, was seated in front of an electric shock machine. The “administrator” explained that the student’s mistakes should be punished with an electric shock, and for a repeated miss, the discharge should be increased. According to the scenario, the “student” was sure to make mistakes and receive stronger blows, despite screaming and banging on the wall. If the “teacher” was in doubt, the “administrator” ordered to continue.

The car wasn’t real, but 63% of the “teachers” pressed the switches even though they heard the “student” begging to stop. The test subjects were not sadists. Many suffered, fought in hysterics, asked to release the victim, but almost no one dared to disobey orders. Milgram was the first to show how behavior depends on the circumstances and how great is the power of authority.

6. Why You Shouldn’t Trust Your Intuition: The False Consent Effect

Many believe that they can unravel someone’s thoughts and actions. But we draw conclusions based on lived experience, so where does such a strong confidence come from? Stanford professor Lee Ross conducted two experiments. In the first, the participants were described a dispute that could be resolved in two ways. And then they were given the task:

1. say which path they will choose;
2. guess what others will choose;
3. characterize people according to their choice.

The majority decided that the rest answered the same way as they did. Participants spoke unflatteringly about those who did not share their opinion.

In the second experiment, students were asked to wear a billboard that read “You’ll be fed at Joe’s” around their necks and walk around the campus for half an hour. The promoters looked pretty stupid. However, you could refuse. Among those who agreed, 62% thought others did the same. Among those who refused, 33% admitted that the rest put on a shield.

We are unimportant intuitive psychologists, consciously or subconsciously confident in our rightness and normality. Those who do not share our point of view, we consider slightly nuts. But don’t be fooled, we don’t know what’s going on in their heads.

7. I vote for my people: social identity theory

Group behavior is an interesting phenomenon. Uniting, people behave strangely, copy each other, consider “their own” better, choose a leader. It is impossible to realize your belonging to a particular group in 30 seconds, Henri Taschfel proved the opposite. Adolescents aged 14-15 were shown slides with paintings by Kandinsky and Klee. Then they were told that they would be divided into two groups depending on whose paintings they chose. The trick was done to instill the idea: there is “we” and “they”. Then everyone was individually invited to a special room, given toy money and offered to distribute the prize amount between two other participants. Only a code was known about each, denoting “one’s own” or “alien”.

Of course, everyone tried to pay their own more! At the same time, the boys had no idea who was with them and who was against them, they did not know what benefits they would receive by giving preference to members of their group.

According to Tashfel’s theory, people find a place in society through the awareness of belonging to a social group. Our behavior is largely determined by these groups. And vice versa: the nature of intra-group relations determines our identity.

8. The Rule of Good Deals: Experiments by Deutsch and Krauss

We make deals all the time, like which restaurant to hang out with a friend, which movie to watch. Morton Deutsch and Robert Krauss conducted a series of gaming experiments and found that there are two factors in any transaction: information and threats. So there are two players. Each has its own transport company, base and destination. The task is to deliver more goods and earn more money.

There are two routes: short and twice as long. It is more profitable to use the short road, but only one car can pass on it. In addition, each player controls a roadblock in their area – a two-way threat. There is no contact with a competitor. The players either closed the shortest path to each other, forcing them to turn onto a bypass, then they collided head-on and returned to their bases. At the end of the game, both were at a loss.

In the next stages of the experiment, the conditions changed. First, the players were given intercoms to communicate and find a mutually beneficial solution. But they failed to reach an agreement and lost again. Then they were obliged to exchange several phrases on each trip. This time the results are slightly better. Even more successful was the game in which there was one checkpoint – a one-sided threat. And finally, both reached their maximum profit when the roadblocks disappeared, and with them – mutual threats.

The participants acted under the pressure of the situation. But the same rule works in life: in cooperation, everyone wins; in competition, there are inevitably losers.

9. Why we do not help the victims: the indifference of eyewitnesses

It turns out that the presence of other people interferes with helping in an emergency. John Darley and Bib Latane investigated this phenomenon. People who did not know each other were invited to the experiment, ostensibly to discuss personal problems. In each group there were from two to four people, and they did not see each other, communicating by selector. In the middle of the conversation, one of them suddenly imitated an epileptic attack, begged to be saved.

The more people who participated in the discussion, the slower they reacted to the situation. At the same time, people were not at all indifferent. On the contrary, many of their hands were shaking, they were sweating and visibly nervous. The likelihood that someone will come to the rescue depends on the number of eyewitnesses. The more people around, the less chance the victim has – everyone is waiting for someone else to help. Not because we are callous and indifferent. Few are able to instantly assess the situation and take responsibility, as soon as one begins to act, others also rush to help.

10. I do not believe my eyes: imitation of many

We are born conformists, we copy someone’s tastes, manner of speaking and worldview. Is there a limit to imitation? Psychologist Solomon Asch brought students together for an “eye test”. The purpose of the experiment was to find out how a person is influenced by the opinion of the majority. 8 participants were fake, one real. They were shown two cards: with one and three lines. One line on the second card was the same length as on the first. Then they were asked to answer which of the three lines coincides in length with the standard. The dummy participants deliberately gave erroneous answers, and the only real test subject answered last.

In more than half of the cases, 50% of the subjects also answered incorrectly. 5% joined the majority in all cases. Only 25% of the subjects never agreed with the general erroneous opinion.

After the experiment, everyone was asked to explain their position. Everyone felt uncomfortable, afraid of general disapproval. Some admitted that they agreed with the majority in order not to stand out. Several people said they saw the lines just like everyone else. Of course, the tendency to accept an imposed opinion in spite of obvious facts is somewhat alarming. Psychologists believe that typical conformists are distinguished by high levels of anxiety, low self-esteem, an increased need for approval, and a desire for authoritarianism.

On the other hand, conformism is a blessing. How much more difficult it would be to live in society if everyone acted in their own way, for example, violated laws or traffic rules.

Source: spring.org.uk