Man and the features of his personality have been the object of interest and study of the great minds of mankind for more than one century. And from the very beginning of the development of psychological science to the present day, people have managed to develop and significantly improve their skills in this difficult but exciting business. Therefore, now, in order to obtain reliable data in the study of the characteristics of the human psyche and his personality, people use big amount a variety of methods and methods of research in psychology. And one of the methods that have gained the greatest popularity and proven themselves from the most practical side is a psychological experiment.

We decided to consider individual examples of the most famous, interesting and even inhumane and shocking socio-psychological experiments that were carried out on people, regardless of the general material, due to their importance and significance. But at the beginning of this part of our course, we will once again recall what a psychological experiment is and what are its features, and also briefly touch on the types and characteristics of the experiment.

What is an experiment?

Experiment in psychology- this is a certain experience, which is carried out in special conditions, in order to obtain psychological data by interfering with the researcher in the process of the subject's activity. Both a specialist scientist and a simple layman can act as a researcher during the experiment.

The main characteristics and features of the experiment are:

• The ability to change any variable and create new conditions to identify new patterns;
• Possibility to choose a starting point;
• Possibility of repeated holding;
• The ability to include other methods of psychological research in the experiment: test, survey, observation, and others.

The experiment itself can be of several types: laboratory, natural, aerobatic, explicit, hidden, etc.

If you have not studied the first lessons of our course, then you will probably be interested to know that you can learn more about the experiment and other research methods in psychology in our lesson “Methods of Psychology”. Now we turn to the most famous psychological experiments.

The most famous psychological experiments

hawthorne experiment

The name Hawthorne experiment refers to a series of socio-psychological experiments that were carried out from 1924 to 1932 in the American city of Hawthorne at the Western Electrics factory by a group of researchers led by psychologist Elton Mayo. The prerequisite for the experiment was a decrease in labor productivity among factory workers. Studies that have been conducted on this issue have not been able to explain the reasons for this decline. Because the factory management was interested in raising productivity, the scientists were given absolute freedom actions. Their goal was to identify the relationship between the physical conditions of work and the efficiency of workers.

After a long study, scientists came to the conclusion that labor productivity is influenced by social conditions and, mainly, the emergence of workers' interest in the work process, as a result of their awareness of their participation in the experiment. The mere fact that workers are singled out in a separate group and they receive special attention from scientists and managers already affects the efficiency of workers. By the way, during the Hawthorne experiment, the Hawthorne effect was revealed, and the experiment itself raised the authority of psychological research as scientific methods.

Knowing about the results of the Hawthorne experiment, as well as about the effect, we can apply this knowledge in practice, namely: to have a positive impact on our activities and the activities of other people. Parents can improve the development of their children, educators can improve student achievement, employers can improve the efficiency of their employees and productivity. To do this, you can try to announce that a certain experiment will take place, and the people to whom you announce this are its important component. For the same purpose, you can apply the introduction of any innovation. But you can learn more about it here.

And you can find out the details of the Hawthorne experiment.

Milgram experiment

The Milgram experiment was first described by an American social psychologist in 1963. His goal was to find out how much suffering some people can cause to others, and innocent people, provided that this is their job duties. The participants in the experiment were told that they were studying the effect of pain on memory. And the participants were the experimenter himself, the real subject ("teacher") and the actor who played the role of another subject ("student"). The “student” had to memorize the words from the list, and the “teacher” had to check his memory and, in case of an error, punish him with an electric discharge, each time increasing its strength.

Initially, the Milgram experiment was carried out in order to find out how the inhabitants of Germany could take part in the destruction of a huge number of people during the Nazi terror. As a result, the experiment clearly demonstrated the inability of people (in this case, "teachers") to resist the boss (researcher), who ordered the "work" to continue, despite the fact that the "student" suffered. As a result of the experiment, it was revealed that the need to obey authorities is deeply rooted in the human mind, even under the condition internal conflict and moral suffering. Milgram himself noted that under the pressure of authority, adequate adults are able to go very far.

If we think for a while, we will see that, in fact, the results of the Milgram experiment tell us, among other things, about the inability of a person to independently decide what to do and how to behave when someone is “above” him higher in rank, status, etc. The manifestation of these features of the human psyche, unfortunately, very often leads to disastrous results. In order for our society to be truly civilized, people must learn to always be guided by a human attitude towards each other, as well as ethical norms and moral principles that their conscience dictates to them, and not the authority and power of other people.

You can get acquainted with the details of the Milgram experiment.

Stanford Prison Experiment

The Stanford Prison Experiment was conducted by American psychologist Philip Zimbardo in 1971 at Stanford. It explored a person's reaction to the conditions of imprisonment, the restriction of freedom and the impact on his behavior of an imposed social role. Funding was provided by the US Navy in order to explain the causes of conflicts in marines and correctional institutions of the Navy. For the experiment, men were selected, some of whom became "prisoners", and the other part - "guards".

"Guards" and "prisoners" very quickly got used to their roles, and situations in a makeshift prison sometimes arose very dangerous. Sadistic inclinations were manifested in a third of the "guards", and the "prisoners" received severe moral injuries. The experiment, designed for two weeks, was stopped after six days, because. he started to get out of control. The Stanford prison experiment is often compared to the Milgram experiment we described above.

IN real life one can see how any justifying ideology supported by the state and society can make people overly receptive and submissive, and the power of authorities has a strong impact on the personality and psyche of a person. Watch yourself, and you will see visual confirmation of how certain conditions and situations affect your internal state and shape behavior more than the internal characteristics of your personality. It is very important to be able to always be yourself and remember your values ​​in order not to be influenced by external factors. And this can be done only with the help of constant self-control and awareness, which, in turn, need regular and systematic training.

Details of the Stanford Prison Experiment can be found by following this link.

Ringelmann experiment

The Ringelmann experiment (aka the Ringelmann effect) was first described in 1913 and carried out in 1927 by the French professor of agricultural engineering, Maximilian Ringelmann. This experiment was carried out out of curiosity, but revealed a pattern of decrease in people's productivity depending on the increase in the number of people in the group in which they work. For the experiment, a random selection of a different number of people was carried out to perform a certain job. In the first case, it was weight lifting, and in the second, tug of war.

One person could lift as much as possible, for example, a weight of 50 kg. Therefore, two people should have been able to lift 100 kg, because. the result should increase in direct proportion. But the effect was different: two people were able to lift only 93% of the weight that 100% of which could be lifted alone. When the group of people was increased to eight people, they only lifted 49% of the weight. In the case of tug of war, the effect was the same: an increase in the number of people reduced the percentage of efficiency.

It can be concluded that when we rely only on our own strengths, then we make maximum efforts to achieve the result, and when we work in a group, we often rely on someone else. The problem lies in the passivity of actions, and this passivity is more social than physical. Solitary work makes us reflex to get the most out of ourselves, and in group work the result is not so significant. Therefore, if you need to do something very important, then it is best to rely only on yourself and not rely on the help of other people, because then you will give your best "to the fullest" and achieve your goal, and other people are not so important what is important to you.

More information about the Ringelmann experiment/effect can be found here.

Experiment "I and others"

"Me and Others" is a Soviet popular science film of 1971, which features footage of several psychological experiments, the course of which is commented on by the announcer. The experiments in the film reflect the influence of the opinions of others on a person and his ability to think out what he could not remember. All experiments were prepared and conducted by psychologist Valeria Mukhina.

Experiments shown in the film:

• "Attack": the subjects must describe the details of an impromptu attack and recall the signs of the attackers.
• "Scientist or killer": the subjects are shown a portrait of the same person, having previously presented him as a scientist or a killer. Participants must make a psychological portrait of this person.
• “Both are white”: black and white pyramids are placed on the table in front of the child participants. Three of the children say that both pyramids are white, testing the fourth for suggestibility. The results of the experiment are very interesting. Later, this experiment was carried out with the participation of adults.
• "Sweet salty porridge": three-quarters of the porridge in the bowl is sweet, and one is salty. Three children are given porridge and they say it is sweet. The fourth is given a salty "site". Task: to check what the child who tasted the salty “plot” would call the porridge, when the other three say that it is sweet, thereby checking the importance public opinion.
• "Portraits": participants are shown 5 portraits and asked to find out if there are two photos of the same person among them. At the same time, all participants, except for one who came later, must say that two different photos This is a photo of the same person. The essence of the experiment is also to find out how the opinion of the majority affects the opinion of one.
• Shooting range: there are two targets in front of the student. If he shoots to the left, then a ruble will fall out, which he can take for himself, if to the right, then the ruble will go to the needs of the class. The left target initially had more hit marks. It is necessary to find out which target the student will shoot at if he sees that many of his comrades shot at the left target.

The overwhelming majority of the results of the experiments conducted in the film showed that for people (both for children and adults) what others say and their opinion is very important. So it is in life: very often we give up our beliefs and opinions when we see that the opinions of others do not coincide with our own. That is, we can say that we lose ourselves among the rest. For this reason, many people do not achieve their goals, betray their dreams, follow the lead of the public. You need to be able to maintain your individuality in any conditions and always think only with your head. After all, first of all, it will serve you well.

By the way, in 2010 a remake of this film was made, in which the same experiments were presented. If you wish, you can find both of these films on the Internet.

"Monsterous" experiment

A monstrous experiment was conducted in 1939 in the United States by psychologist Wendell Johnson and his graduate student Mary Tudor in order to find out how susceptible children are to suggestion. For the experiment, 22 orphans from the city of Davenport were selected. They were divided into two groups. The children from the first group were told about how wonderful and correct they were speaking, and they were praised in every possible way. The other half of the children were convinced that their speech was full of flaws, and they were called miserable stutterers.

The results of this monstrous experiment were also monstrous: in the majority of children from the second group, who did not have any speech defects, all the symptoms of stuttering began to develop and take root, which persisted throughout their later life. The experiment itself was hidden from the public for a very long time so as not to damage the reputation of Dr. Johnson. Then, nevertheless, people learned about this experiment. Later, by the way, similar experiments were carried out by the Nazis on concentration camp prisoners.

Looking at life modern society, sometimes you are amazed at how parents raise their children these days. You can often see how they scold their children, insult them, call them names, call them very unpleasant words. It is not surprising that people with a broken psyche and developmental disabilities grow out of young children. You need to understand that everything that we say to our children, and even more so if we say it often, will eventually find its reflection in their inner world and the formation of their personality. We need to carefully monitor everything that we say to our children, how we communicate with them, what kind of self-esteem we form and what values ​​we instill. Only healthy upbringing and true parental love can make our sons and daughters adequate people, ready for adulthood and able to become part of a normal and healthy society.

There is more information about the "monstrous" experiment.

Project "Aversion"

This terrible project was carried out from 1970 to 1989 in the South African army under the "leadership" of Colonel Aubrey Levin. It was a secret program designed to purge the ranks of the South African army from people of non-traditional sexual orientation. The "participants" of the experiment, according to official figures, were about 1,000 people, although the exact number of victims is unknown. To achieve a "good" goal, scientists used a variety of means: from drugs and electroshock therapy to castration with chemicals and sex reassignment surgery.

The Aversion project failed: it turned out to be impossible to change the sexual orientation of military personnel. And the “approach” itself was not based on any scientific evidence about homosexuality and transsexuality. Many of the victims of this project have never been able to rehabilitate themselves. Some committed suicide.

Of course, this project concerned only persons of non-traditional sexual orientation. But if we talk about those who are different from the rest in general, then we can often see that society does not want to accept people "not like" the rest. Even the slightest manifestation of individuality can cause ridicule, hostility, misunderstanding and even aggression from the majority of "normal". Each person is an individuality, a personality with its own characteristics and mental properties. Inner world each person is a whole universe. We have no right to tell people how they should live, speak, dress, etc. We should not try to change them, if their “wrongness”, of course, does not harm the life and health of others. We must accept everyone for who they are, regardless of their gender, religion, political or even sexual affiliation. Everyone has the right to be themselves.

More details about the Aversion project can be found at this link.

Landis experiments

Landis's experiments are also called Spontaneous Facial Expressions and Subordination. A series of these experiments was carried out by psychologist Carini Landis in Minnesota in 1924. The purpose of the experiment was to identify common patterns in the work of groups facial muscles, which are responsible for the expression of emotions, as well as the search for facial expressions characteristic of these emotions. The participants in the experiments were students of Landis.

For a more distinct display of facial expressions, special lines were drawn on the faces of the subjects. After that, they were presented with something capable of causing strong emotional experiences. For disgust, students sniffed ammonia, for excitement they watched pornographic pictures, for pleasure they listened to music, and so on. But the latest experiment, in which the subjects had to cut off the head of a rat, caused the widest resonance. And at first, many participants flatly refused to do it, but in the end they did it anyway. The results of the experiment did not reflect any regularity in the expressions of people's faces, but they showed how ready people are to obey the will of authorities and are able, under this pressure, to do what they normal conditions would never do.

It’s the same in life: when everything is fine and goes as it should, when everything goes on as usual, then we feel confident in ourselves as people, have our own opinion and preserve our individuality. But as soon as someone puts pressure on us, most of us immediately cease to be ourselves. Landis' experiments once again proved that a person easily "bends" under others, ceases to be independent, responsible, reasonable, etc. In fact, no authority can force us to force us to do what we do not want. Especially if it entails causing harm to other living beings. If every person is aware of this, then it is quite likely that this will be able to make our world much more humane and civilized, and life in it - more comfortable and better.

You can learn more about Landis' experiments here.

Little Albert

An experiment called "Little Albert" or "Little Albert" was conducted in New York in 1920 by psychologist John Watson, who, by the way, is the founder of behaviorism - a special direction in psychology. The experiment was conducted in order to find out how fear is formed on objects that had not caused any fear before.

For the experiment, they took a nine-month-old boy named Albert. For some time he was shown a white rat, a rabbit, cotton wool and other white objects. The boy played with the rat and got used to it. After that, when the boy started playing with the rat again, the doctor would hit the metal with a hammer, causing the boy a very unpleasant feeling. After a certain period of time, Albert began to avoid contact with the rat, and even later, at the sight of a rat, as well as cotton wool, a rabbit, etc. started crying. As a result of the experiment, it was suggested that fears are formed in a person even in the very early age and then remain for life. As for Albert, his unreasonable fear of a white rat remained with him for the rest of his life.

The results of the "Little Albert" experiment, firstly, remind us again how important it is to pay attention to any little things in the process of raising a child. Something that seems to us at first glance quite insignificant and overlooked, can in some strange way be reflected in the psyche of the child and develop into some kind of phobia or fear. When raising children, parents should be extremely attentive and observe everything that surrounds them and how they react to it. Secondly, thanks to what we now know, we can identify, understand and work through some of our fears, the cause of which we cannot find. It is quite possible that what we are unreasonably afraid of came to us from our own childhood. And how nice it can be to get rid of some fears that tormented or simply bothered in everyday life?!

You can learn more about the Little Albert experiment here.

Learned (learned) helplessness

Acquired helplessness is a mental state in which the individual does absolutely nothing to somehow improve his situation, even having such an opportunity. This condition appears mainly after several unsuccessful attempts to influence negative impacts environment. As a result, a person refuses any action to change or avoid a harmful environment; the feeling of freedom and faith in one's own strength are lost; depression and apathy appear.

This phenomenon was first discovered in 1966 by two psychologists: Martin Seligman and Steve Mayer. They conducted experiments on dogs. The dogs were divided into three groups. The dogs from the first group sat in the cages for a while and were released. Dogs from the second group were subjected to small electric shocks, but were given the opportunity to turn off the electricity by pressing the lever with their paws. The third group was subjected to the same shocks, but without the possibility of turning it off. After some time, the dogs from the third group were placed in a special aviary, from which it was easy to get out by simply jumping over the wall. In this enclosure, the dogs were also subjected to electric shocks, but they continued to remain in place. This told the scientists that the dogs had developed "learned helplessness" and became confident that they were helpless in the face of the outside world. After the scientists concluded that the human psyche behaves in a similar way after several failures. But was it worth it to torture dogs in order to find out what, in principle, we all have known for so long?

Probably, many of us can recall examples of confirmation of what the scientists proved in the above experiment. Every person in life can have a losing streak when it seems that everything and everyone is against you. These are moments when you give up, you want to give up everything, stop wanting something better for yourself and your loved ones. Here you need to be strong, show fortitude of character and fortitude. It is these moments that temper us and make us stronger. Some people say that this is how life tests strength. And if this test is passed steadfastly and with a proudly raised head, then luck will be favorable. But even if you don't believe in such things, just remember that it's not always good or always bad. one always replaces the other. Never lower your head and do not betray your dreams, they, as they say, will not forgive you for this. In difficult moments of life, remember that there is a way out of any situation and you can always “jump over the wall of the enclosure”, and the darkest hour is before dawn.

You can read more about what is learned helplessness and about experiments related to this concept.

Boy raised like a girl

This experiment is one of the most inhuman in history. It, so to speak, was held from 1965 to 2004 in Baltimore (USA). In 1965, a boy named Bruce Reimer was born there, whose penis was damaged during a circumcision procedure. Parents, not knowing what to do, turned to psychologist John Money and he "recommended" them to simply change the sex of the boy and raise him as a girl. The parents followed the "advice", gave permission for the sex change operation and began to raise Bruce as Brenda. In fact, Dr. Mani has long wanted to conduct an experiment to prove that gender is due to upbringing, and not nature. The boy Bruce became his guinea pig.

Despite the fact that Mani noted in his reports that the child grows up as a full-fledged girl, parents and school teachers argued that, on the contrary, the child shows all the properties of a boy's character. Both the parents of the child and the child himself experienced extreme stress for many years. A few years later, Bruce-Brenda nevertheless decided to become a man: he changed his name and became David, changed his image and performed several operations to “return” to male physiology. He even got married and adopted his wife's children. But in 2004, after breaking up with his wife, David committed suicide. He was 38 years old.

What can be said about this "experiment" in relation to our Everyday life? Probably only that a person is born with a certain set of qualities and predispositions due to genetic information. Fortunately, not many people try to make daughters out of their sons or vice versa. But, nevertheless, while raising their child, some parents do not seem to want to notice the peculiarities of the character of their child and his emerging personality. They want to "sculpt" the child, as if from plasticine - to make him the way they themselves want to see him, without taking into account his individuality. And this is unfortunate, because. it is because of this that many people in adulthood feel their unfulfillment, frailty and meaninglessness of being, do not enjoy life. The small finds confirmation in the big, and any influence we have on children will be reflected in their future life. Therefore, it is worth being more attentive to your children and understanding that every person, even the smallest one, has his own path and you need to try with all your might to help him find it.

And some details of the life of David Reimer himself are here at this link.

The experiments considered by us in this article, as you might guess, represent only a small part of the total number ever carried out. But even they show us, on the one hand, how multifaceted and little studied the personality of a person and his psyche. And, on the other hand, what a great interest a person arouses in himself, and how much effort is made so that he can know his nature. Despite the fact that such a noble goal was often achieved by far from noble means, one can only hope that a person has somehow succeeded in his aspiration, and experiments that are harmful to a living being will cease to be carried out. We can say with confidence that it is possible and necessary to study the psyche and personality of a person for many more centuries, but this should be done only on the basis of considerations of humanism and humanity.

The third wave is a psychological experiment conducted by history teacher Ron Jones on American high school students. In early April 1967, Jones spent a week in a Palo Alto school class trying to make sense of the behavior of the German people under repressive National Socialism. Having established strict rules for schoolchildren and becoming the creator of a youth group, he, to his surprise, met with no resistance from either students or adults. On the fifth day, Jones stopped the experiment, explaining to the students how easily they are manipulated, and that their obedient behavior these days is not fundamentally different from the actions of ordinary citizens of the Third Reich.

Experiment

Ron Jones taught history at Ellwood Cubberle High School in Palo Alto, California. While studying World War II, one of the schoolchildren asked Jones how ordinary Germans could pretend not to know anything about concentration camps and mass extermination of people in their country. Since the class was ahead curriculum, Jones decided to allocate one week for an experiment dedicated to this issue.

On Monday, he explained to the students the power of discipline. Jones told the students to sit in the "at attention" position, as it is more conducive to learning. Then he ordered the students to stand up and sit down several times in a new position, then he also repeatedly ordered them to leave the audience and silently enter and take their seats. The students liked the “game” and they willingly followed the instructions. Jones told the students to answer questions clearly and vividly, and they obeyed with interest, even the usually passive students.

On Tuesday, Jones explained the power of community to a class that had sat down on their own. He had the students chant in unison: "Strength in discipline, strength in community." The disciples acted with obvious enthusiasm, seeing the strength of their group. At the end of the lesson, Jones showed the students the salute they were supposed to use when meeting each other - a raised bent right hand to the shoulder - and called this gesture the Third Wave salute. In the following days, the students regularly greeted each other with this gesture.
On Wednesday, 13 more students volunteered to join the 30 students in the experimental class, and Jones decided to issue membership cards. He talked about the power of action. According to him, individual rivalry is often frustrating, while group activities lead to greater learning success. Jones had the students work together to design a Third Wave banner, convince twenty children from a nearby elementary school to sit at attention, and name one reliable student each who could join the experiment. Three students were given the task of reporting to Jones on violations of the established order and criticism of the Third Wave, but in practice about 20 people volunteered to report. One of the students, Robert, who was distinguished by a large physique and low learning abilities, told Jones that he would be his bodyguard, and followed him throughout the school. The three most successful students of the class, whose abilities were not in demand in the new conditions, informed their parents about the experiment. As a result, Jones received a phone call from a local rabbi, who was satisfied with the answer that the class was studying the German personality type in practice. The rabbi promised to explain everything to the parents of the schoolgirls. Jones was extremely frustrated by the lack of resistance even from the adults, the principal of the school greeted him with the salute of the Third Wave.

On Thursday morning, the audience was trashed by the father of one of the students, who was waiting for Jones in the hallway. He was not himself, explained his behavior by the German captivity and asked to understand him. Jones, who was trying to speed up the completion of the experiment, explained to the students the power of pride. 80 schoolchildren gathered in the class heard that they are part of a nationwide youth program whose task is political transformation for the benefit of the people. Jones ordered four escorts to escort three girls from the auditorium and escort them to the library, whose loyalty was questionable. He then said that hundreds of Third Wave chapters had been set up in other regions of the country, and that the movement's leader and new presidential candidate would announce their creation on television at noon on Friday.

On Friday afternoon, 200 students crowded into the classroom, including representatives of youth subcultures who were not interested in school affairs in principle. Jones' friends posed as photographers as they circled the audience. At noon, the TV was turned on, but nothing appeared on the screen. Seeing the bewilderment of the schoolchildren, Jones admitted that the movement does not exist, and the students abandoned their own opinions and easily succumbed to manipulation. According to him, their actions did not differ much from the behavior of the German people in the critical years. Schoolchildren dispersed in a depressed state, many could not hold back their tears.

Consequences

The experiment was spontaneous and for a long time remained unknown to the general public, which was facilitated by the shame of its participants for their actions. In the late 1970s, Jones published the history of the experiment in his pedagogical book. In 1981, the novel and television movie The Wave, based on the experiment, was released. In 2008, the heavily dramatized German film Experiment 2: The Wave was released.

Background of the experiment

Winthrop Kellogg - American psychologist (1898-1972), who gained fame as an odious experimenter. The fact is that he conducted experiments in the field comparative psychology primates, and more specifically, Kellogg tried to raise a chimpanzee as a person in a normal average family.

Winthrop Kellogg and Gua (1931)

The idea came to him while studying at Columbia, when Kellogg encountered journalistic articles about "wolf children" in India. Most of all, Winthrop was interested in the fact that the “Mowglis” returned to the bosom of civilization could not fully socialize and often showed the habits of their “parents”.

However, the researcher believed that these children are born with normal intellectual abilities, as they perfectly adapt to the conditions around them. Winthrop Kellogg believed that the main problem in the socialization of children raised by wild animals was not their fundamental underdevelopment, but the exceptional influence of early experience and the existence of a special, critical mental experience experienced in infancy and childhood.

Inspired by the stories of Mowgli children, Winthrop Kellogg decides to test the theses he formulated in the article “Humanizing of ape”. The article itself was published in Psychological Review #38. The psychologist was interested in "the relative influence of nature and nurture on behavior."

By virtue of the fact that to conduct an experiment in which the subject would be a child would mean to violate those few ethical standards that existed in the scientific and psychological environment of that time, they decided to abandon this option:

“A human infant with normal intelligence will be placed in a wild environment and [will be observed] ... for its development in this environment”

So Kellogg and his wife Luella created an experimental design in which the conditions of upbringing would be reversed. That is, a wild animal would fit in a human social environment and would be brought up in it. A similar experiment had already been done a year before the Kelloggs Carlisle Jacobsen (1930), but the results were negative.

In addition, Winthrop Kellogg criticized the failed experiment. The scientist argued this as follows: Carlisle chose an already one-year-old chimpanzee, who, moreover, lived in a zoo for some time, which means that he had an attitude towards people as masters, and towards himself as an animal. In contrast, Winthrop formulated the key position of his project as follows:

"Creating an atmosphere in which the animal was always perceived as a person, and never as a pet."

In the end, it was decided to raise the monkey in a home environment, along with their nine-month-old baby, baby Donald. The original plan for the experiment was to move to West Africa, but a banal lack of funds almost destroyed the prospect of the study. The Kelloggs were saved by Robert Yerkes, from whom Winthrop took care of the seven-month-old female chimpanzee Gua in 1931.

Experiment progress

Donald and Gua were brought up on an equal footing, without making a difference between them. Both of them were dressed, put on a highchair, during meals, spoon-fed, washed and taught. Not surprisingly, the chimpanzee and the child quickly bonded and became inseparable.

Gua and Donald in anticipation of tests for speed of reaction.

A few months later, Winthrop and Luella began tests of intelligence, quickness of reaction, and the ability to determine the direction of a sound. One of the tests looked like this: they hung cookies on a thread in the middle of the room, and Donald and Gua were given sticks, watching who figured out how to get a treat faster.

In another test, the chimpanzee and the baby were blindfolded and called by name. Both subjects were given the same items (a spoon, pencils and paper, like a bicycle) and the speed of mastering the items was compared. There were several reaction tests: for a loud sound, for a long exposure (a child and a chimpanzee were twisted on a chair around its axis long time), to a delayed reaction (mom or dad hid behind a screen, and the test subjects had to follow them).

Gua showed great ingenuity in everything related to mobility and ways of obtaining food, while Donald mastered the objects familiar to us at times: a spoon, a plate, pencils and paper.

In total, the monkey and the human cub spent 9 months together: the experiment began in 1931, and ended on March 28, 1932. It was assumed that the experiment would last 5 years. From the above, it is not difficult to guess that the study was not completed, because the Kelloggs failed to make a person out of a chimpanzee. Their biggest successes are teaching the Gua upright posture and the use of a spoon while eating. The chimpanzee understood a little human speech, but she herself could not speak, even the most simple words. The monkey could not even master such a simple human game as "patties", unlike Donald. And yet, why was the experiment interrupted so early?

The fact is that Winthrop and Luella were frightened by the lag in the development of their son Donald. At 19 months, the boy knew and used only three words, begging for food, hooting and imitating the barking of monkeys. The boy began to imitate his "sister" too much, and the Kelloggs ended the experiment. It cannot be said that Winthrop Kellogg's hypothesis about the influence of the natural environment and education on the formation of behavioral patterns has been completely refuted, but it is obvious that the general educational environment is not enough to direct mental development in the right direction.

Unfortunately, Donald's fate remains unknown, while a little more is known about Gua. The life of the test subject was tragic: she was returned to the primate research center, where she died a few years later. More such experiments were not carried out.

Criticism

Surprisingly, Winthrop Kellogg's rather strange experiment was relatively favorably received in the scientific community. Although such loyalty can be easily explained by the trends in American psychological science at the beginning of the 20th century, radical behaviorism and scientific positivism were bearing fruit. In an article in Time (Baby & Ape), the researcher wrote:

“The Gua, perceived as a human child, behaved like a human child, except when her body and brain interfered with her. The experiment has been terminated."

In the end, the materials of the experiment formed the basis of Kellogg's book "The Ape and The Child, released in 1933. However, there was also criticism. So several psychologists expressed disapproval due to the fact that an infant was chosen as the object of research. It seemed unethical to them. Others criticized Kellogg for weaning the chimpanzees from their mothers and animal society, which automatically made Gua's life extremely difficult, even in the conditions of a research center.

conclusions

It seems that the attempt to humanize animals, even primates related to us, cannot be crowned with success. The impact of the environment, which the Winthrops hoped for, was not strong enough, while communication with a piece of wildlife negatively affected their son.

Donald and Gua playing ball (late 1931).

If you look at the results of the study from the position of Kellogg, then everything looks a little different. The study showed the boundaries of the influence of heredity, independent of the environment, and made it possible to identify the benefits of mental development due to an enriched environment.

As stated above, Gua never lived up to Kellogg's expectations of human language acquisition, as she was unable to imitate human speech. On the contrary, the same cannot be said of Donald, who imitated some of the Gua sounds, which says

It seems that such an experiment should once again convince the scientific community of the failure of the superstructure, in the form of a highly organized and overcomplicated society, but this does not happen. So, a special case of unsuccessful researchers.

However, everything is as usual, someone may not like it.

1. W.N. Kellogg - "Humanizing the ape" (1931).

2. W.N. Kellogg - "Babe & Ape" (Time, 1933).

the emergence of socio-psychological ideas in the depths of public and natural sciences(this period is discussed above);

The separation of social psychology from sociology and psychology and its design as an independent branch of knowledge ( late XIX- the beginning of the XX century);

Experimental period in the development of social psychology (until the 60s of the XX century);

Formation and development of the main directions of modern social psychology.

From the first theoretical socio-psychological concepts to the first textbooks on social psychology, and from them to experiment - such is the path that can be designated as the separation of descriptive social psychology from philosophy, sociology and general psychology and its formation as an independent branch of knowledge. The socio-psychological concepts are considered that determine the development of socio-psychological knowledge and are the basis for the creation of one of the first textbooks on social psychology, which were published in 1908: "Social Psychology" by the American sociologist E. Ross and "Introduction to Social Psychology" by the English psychologist, who moved to the USA, W. McDougall. In American textbooks, another date is called, which is also considered the symbolic beginning of social psychology as an independent discipline: 1898 - the first socio-psychological experiment. Thus, the American psychologist N. Triplett drew attention to the fact that cyclists often achieve better results in conditions when they directly compete with each other than when they go their distance on their own, focusing only on a stopwatch. He also noticed that the average speed of a cyclist on that part of the track where the stands with spectators are located is higher. average speed movement on the opposite side. His experiment with children who were asked to reel line on a spinning reel showed that most of the children ran faster in competition with each other than when alone. The conclusion that the presence of people affects the behavior and state of the subject was published in the American Psychological Journal, and the author himself gained a reputation as the first experimenter. However, the two "first" fields are not the first, because in 1897 J. Baldwin published a study on social psychology. It is known that the term "social psychology" was used to study the individual within society as early as 1871. In principle, what matters is not the symbolic date of the independent establishment of social psychology, but the fact that there are two approaches to solving socio-psychological problems. The first one is individualistic, i.e. a look at social psychology through the prism of the theory of instincts, and the second - collectivist, in the traditions of mass psychology. Further study of socio-psychological phenomena is associated with maximum cohesion, general coordination of people's actions, which are possible under conditions of organization, management and purposeful influence on interaction. Social psychology, finally, is gradually moving to a new stage in its development - experimental.

The experimental stage in the development of social psychology is inseparable from the theory of scientific management, in the field of which the concept of the normative order (the subordination of individual behavior to the system of norms accepted in society) was concretized. The classical theory of organization and management is associated with the name of the American mechanical engineer Frederick Vinciou Taylor (1856-1915 pp.), who is considered the founder of scientific management. F. Taylor was convinced that the maximum prosperity of the employer and each employee is achieved as a result of control over the labor process, which is based on the following principles:

The use of scientific methods, the rejection of outdated "rules of action for beginners";

Rigid selection of workers with the necessary physical qualities and mental abilities for this job;

Training, education and development of the abilities of the worker, and will enable him to strictly follow the established procedures;

The use of financial incentives, which should guarantee the performance of work in accordance with the instructions;

Putting responsibility for planning and organizing work on the manager, and not on the worker.

F. Taylor's concept is focused not on the masses, but on a specific worker, considering him as an object of study. Since economic incentives (i.e. money) are the most important for the worker, according to F. Taylor, he gave them an advantage, and the inner side of motivation, associated with the interests, ideals, value orientations of the employee, remained out of the researcher's field of vision. F. Taylor did not attach any particular importance to the psychophysiological problems of labor. Convinced of the great importance professional selection, however, not having certain knowledge in the field of psychology and physiology, he did not reach the psychotechnical methods of selection. F. Taylor could not answer the question, can a completely untrained person become, for example, a turner, since his system dealt with an already trained worker.

The representative of the classical theory of management, in particular the school of administrative management, was the famous French engineer Airi Fayol (1841 - 1925 pp.), who developed the principles of management for the organization as a whole, in contrast to F. Taylor, in whose scientific management the focus was on production systems. A. Fayol singled out factors for increasing labor productivity, such as the unity of leadership, the subordination of personal interests to common ones, initiative and others. In general, he formulated fourteen management principles, most of which also have a socio-psychological meaning:

The division of labor (this factor affects the effectiveness of management and contributes to the development of the abilities of workers and workers);

Discipline (no enterprise can develop well without it); "

Authority and responsibility (if the manager has the right to give orders, he thus assumes some responsibility for these orders);

The principle of unity of command (to perform any task, any action, the worker must receive orders only from his leader, will make it possible to avoid chaos and contradictions;

Unity of direction and work plan for all (unity of leadership);

Subordination of personal interests to common ones (the interests of one employee or group should not prevail over the solution of the main task);

The principle of remuneration (quality work should be fairly rewarded, contribute to meeting the needs of staff and the company);

"fairness" (leaders should be polite, friendly and fair in relation to their subordinates, justice, according to A. Fayol, provides for common sense, experience and kindness;

“centralization” and a scalar chain (hierarchy) - as for the first principle, the issue of neutralization or decentralization is a matter of proportion, the search for optimality for a particular enterprise, depending on the nature of the manager, the reliability of subordinates and the state of affairs, employees have the right to take the initiative; In general, according to this principle, the relative importance of the roles of the leader and the subordinate is determined; according to the second principle, then the chain of leaders goes uphill - this is the route along which communications run, starting from leaders with maximum powers, to those who carry out one or two management functions; the general essence of the principle is that the team maintains communications throughout the entire chain;

The principle of "order" (the working materials of the manager must be in a certain place and at a certain time, which will avoid unplanned losses);

The principle of the duration of staff tenure, the stability of the staff (frequent replacement of employees is inefficient, it affects the quality of the enterprise, firm, etc., is the cause and effect of poor leadership);

Initiative (this is a source of entrepreneurial strength, so you need to encourage initiative workers in every possible way, develop their initiative and support it);

The principle of corporate spirit (a leader who knows how to satisfy the pride of his subordinates in his best manifestations, who is able to support their initiative, is much better than the one who does not know how to do this (or does not want to); harmony, staff consent, uniting the interests of employees and management is a great force ; A. Fayol proposed two ways to achieve a corporate spirit: the desire to avoid contention and discord among subordinates and reliance on verbal rather than written communications, in cases where this simplifies and speeds up the delivery of information).

In general, the merit of the classical theory of management is that it first raised the question of two management functions associated with the regulation of technological carry and the regulation of human activity. If the concept of "mass psychology" explained the problem of management as a subject-object relationship (the subject was the one who led - the leader, the leader, the elite, and the object - the one who was ruled, i.e. the masses), then the development of economic relations of capitalism, when the labor force becomes a commodity, and consequently, it becomes possible to choose a place of work, it changes the relationship between the participants in management. It turns out that the centralized state apparatus can no longer operate according to the old scheme: "strength - submission." The situation of competition, the constant introduction of new inventions into production, the pursuit of maximum profit caused the emergence of mandatory rationalization of production and the reproduction of labor at a minimum cost. And this, in turn, required a change in the essence of the very concept of management, where, as shown above, the concept of “labor productivity” becomes dominant, which is considered as a derivative of the optimal organization of social actions and relations in society. Representatives of the new direction believed that the only force capable of streamlining the element of "behavior" is the system of social norms, that is, the conscious attitude of individuals to each other, subject to certain norms, ensures consistency between them and order in society. Based on this, the normative order, t i.e. the subordination of individual behavior to the system of norms accepted in society is interpreted as the reality of society, as a specifically social factor, or social behavior, and social behavior is seen as the interaction of two or more individuals on the basis of conscious attitudes and orientations determined by social norms.

Together, a search began for new sources of increasing labor productivity and new means of regulating social behavior. The first works in this direction were carried out within the framework of the concept of human relations. MP Follett and E. Mayo were prominent representatives of this theory.

Mary Parker Follett (1868-1933 pp.) paid special attention to the analysis of the dynamics of group processes - the joint activity of people aimed at developing plans and their practical implementation; manifestations of the initiative of individuals, their ability to make decisions and implement them; use the potential of all members of society. She was also interested in the socio-psychological problems of management, in particular the study of conflicts that arise in groups; criticized the positions of representatives of scientific management, built on a rigid division of labor; believed that the performance by an employee under conditions of strict control of monotonous, often repetitive tasks devalues ​​the creative human principle, although managers, according to M. Follett, should give workers a chance to develop and demonstrate their own skills. Studying the problem of leadership in the management system, she argued that leadership passes from one person to another depending on the situation. This role should be assumed by the individual who best understands the problems that have developed in management and offers ways out of the problem situation.

Eltop Mayo (1880-1957 pp.) - Australian researcher of human relations in management, as well as M. Follett, great value gave a role human factor in the organization of production. The Harvard Business School professor often overestimated this factor in industrial management, trying to draw the attention of scientists to the specifics of human behavior in managerial activities, which were usually ignored by the concept of scientific management. Together, E. Mayo did this in order to identify social and psychological factors influencing the labor process. Studying the turnover of the workforce in textile enterprises, the scientist came to the conclusion that it was previously caused by the lack of mutual contacts between workers during the work shift, and this affected their job satisfaction. To remedy the situation, it was proposed to introduce mandatory breaks for people to rest throughout the working day, thanks to which the weavers first got to know each other, and therefore began to communicate, forming friendly companies. Data from experiments in the town of Hawthorne allowed us to draw new conclusions. It is known that the first part of the experiments concerned the influence of workplace illumination on production volumes. During the experiment, two groups of workers were singled out (one of them was a control group). The results obtained were unexpected for the researchers: from the improvement of the illumination of the premises, labor productivity increased, but from the decrease in illumination and the deterioration of illumination, the level of output also grew. The result was also interesting in the control group (in which the working conditions did not change): the volume of production grew here as well.

The work carried out allowed us to conclude that other, unknown factors that affect labor productivity are much stronger than the physical environment. Thus, the second group of experiments was aimed at identifying other labor factors. The experimental group, whose members were assemblers of telephone equipment, worked under the guidance of a foreman in a separate room, where there was also an observer who recorded the experimental data and the reaction of the workers. The researchers changed certain variables, which included hours of work, length of breaks, refreshment opportunities; interventions of external factors were prudently eliminated. All workers were informed about the purpose of the study. When the participants of the experiment managed to stabilize the social situation in the group, and the group turned into a team, important changes took place: it was proved that such factors as the monotony of work, fatigue, wage increases, although they affect labor efficiency, are not the main ones; The cohesion of the group, its high corporate spirit was recognized as the most important factor. These factors manifested themselves in interaction and communication outside of work, in being active in helping colleagues, and so on. In general, it has been proven and recorded that people's behavior depends not so much on changes in the physical environment as on its social perception, therefore managers should pay more attention to the emotional needs of their subordinates, to satisfying the social needs and interests of people, to the processes of adaptation of employees to a change in the situation. . The scientific result of the Hawthorne experiments was the concept of “social person” proposed by E. Mayo, in contrast to the concept of “person”, which determined the idea of ​​the theory of scientific management: if for the “economist” the incentive is financial reward, then for the “social person” relationships in the working group are important . Such a conclusion gives the researcher the opportunity to assert that the most important characteristic of a person in the management system is great desire to be consciously connected with colleagues at work and if management ignores this fact or how to deal with it, this will lead to the defeat of management. Of course, the study of E. Mayo drew the attention of scientists to the fact of the existence of a subjective relationship of individuals to each other, to work, working conditions in the management system. At the same time, human relations began to be considered as direct contacts of colleagues at work and an individual worker in these contacts was perceived not only as a functionary of production, but also as a person with their own interests, feelings, aspirations, social needs. Unlike scientific management, which emphasized the technical aspects of work and assumed that people try to meet the requirements of work, the Hawthorne experiment showed the incorrectness of this interpretation: the behavior of workers is influenced not only by economic factors, but also by their social and individual needs.

The central place of the theoretical applied research within the framework of the theory of human relations, they occupy such socio-psychological values ​​as prestige, participation in common affairs, work in a group, which turns into a source of individual success. Scientific interest American sociologist Charles Gorten Balls (1864-1929 pp.) Just make up the socio-psychological mechanisms that are formed as a result of interaction between people in a group. He introduced the concept of "primary group" into sociology and social psychology and was one of the first hunters that the group is able to exercise tight control over the labor behavior of its members. At the same time, C. Cooley argued that the basis of interaction is determined by the mental nature of a person and society cannot function without mental reactions, feelings, mutual assessments by one person of another. In his opinion, the primary groups form the basis of society, it is here that the socialization of the individual takes place, the formation of his own worldview, social experience, knowledge of social reality, ideals, values. C. Cooley was the first to introduce the concept of communication into scientific circulation, which he defines as a mechanism for the existence and development of human relations.

So, the theory of human relations has taken a step forward in terms of understanding the social behavior of a person. At the same time, it, as well as the concept of scientific management, left unanswered the question of what other factors, besides those mentioned, influencing the increase in labor productivity. Of course, the system of factors that determine labor productivity is much more complicated than F. Taylor and E. Mayo assumed: the behavior of workers depends on a set of factors, the range of which, of course, is not limited to financial incentives (F. Taylor) and social needs (E Mayo) .

Further experiments in the field of scientific social psychology are associated with the names of the American psychologist F. Allport, the German psychologist W. Medea. They were founded experimental studies to study the influence of the group on its members during the performance of certain activities. We are talking about social facilitation (from the English Facilitate - to facilitate) and social inhibition (Latin inhibeo - I restrain, suppress). The experiment recorded both an improvement in results or labor productivity (facilitation effect) and their deterioration (social inhibition). Subsequent research, primarily in American social psychology, discovered factors influencing the occurrence of these socio-psychological phenomena: the nature of the tasks that a person performs, the presence of other persons, and so on. Thus, the presence of other people (observers, rivals) has a positive effect on quantitative characteristics activities and negatively - on qualitative ones. In addition, in the presence of others, the effectiveness of simple activities increases and decreases - complex ones. In order to specify the nature of the relationship between an individual and a group, when studying the effect of social facilitation, two types of situations are distinguished, which differ significantly. In a situation where a change in the behavior of an individual occurs in the presence of other people, they behave passively, like spectators, there was an effect called public. If an individual's behavior changes in the presence of others who are actively involved in this activity, then one speaks of a co-action effect. At the same time, co-action as a joint action, in turn, is distinguished from interaction - interaction, covering direct mutual assistance and cooperation.

The nature of experimental research in Western social psychology was determined by the problem associated with studying the effect of the impact of one "individual on another, individual on a group or group on an individual. That is why for F. Allport social psychology became a science that studied the behavior of an individual in those situations where it behavior stimulates other people or is a reaction to it.This definition of the subject of social psychology as the science of the influence of other individuals on a person led to the choice of the main unit of analysis - the individual, or rather, his ^ behavior and changes that occur as a result of the influence of other people on him. 1, respectively, of the subject and the main unit of analysis, a laboratory experiment became an expedient method of research.This was also facilitated by the positivist orientation of American scientific research (it is known that positivism as a philosophical trend proceeded from the fact that science does not have to explain, but only describe phenomena) After the First World War, social and the US scientific climate was more conducive to the transformation of social psychology into a science of man. The discipline has largely moved away from the wider social context and moved into the laboratory, i.e. isolated the objects of study from social phenomena. Physics was chosen as the standard for social psychology with its developed experimental technique and mathematical data processing, and the requirements for the experiment were also formulated, which included:

Minimizing extraneous stimuli in order to identify a clear relationship between dependent and independent variables;

The ability of the experimenter to control the behavioral reactions of the experimental and influence them;

Accurate measurement of these reactions and their verification in repeated experiments with the obligatory use of methods of mathematical statistics.

Based on this, the organization of the experiment was subject to strict procedural standards, according to which the hypothesis must be clearly formulated. Actually, the procedure of the experiment was aimed at testing the hypothesis. In this case, the hypothesis was usually borrowed from other branches of psychology. Thus, the experiment was needed not so much to verify it as to confirm it, and in this case it itself turned into a situation of interpersonal interaction between two people: the experimenter and the subject.

Named construction of the experiment led to the emergence of a number of effects, one of which is known as the "experimenter effect" (his expectations, familiarity with the subjects, gender). The experimenter is able to directly influence the receipt of certain results, the consequence of which may be the effect of the intended assessment, which occurs in the experimental attitude of the experimenter and forces him to act at the same time with the experimenter to a certain extent. Gradually, experimentation became a mass traditional process, especially in university centers, which contributed to the creation of a kind of "laboratory culture", that is, a set of undeclared rules for the behavior of the experimenter and the subject during the experiment. In parallel with the “experimenter effect”, there is the “experimental effect”, when he adapts his behavior to the norms that seem acceptable to him.

One of the most important results of experimental research (late 20s of the 20th century), which lasted more than ten years, was the appearance of the well-known work of two sociologists - the American W. Thomas and the Pole, who later moved to the USA, F. Znanets. Researchers, studying the adaptation of Polish peasants who emigrated from Europe to America, established two dependencies, without which it was impossible to describe the adaptation process: the first is the dependence of the individual on social organization, the second is the dependence of social organization on the individual. The authors of the work "The Polish Peasant in Europe and America" ​​proposed to characterize two aspects of the relationship between the individual and society using the concepts of "social value" (to characterize social organization), "social attitude", "attitude" (to characterize the individual; this concept was also introduced in socio-psychological terminology). For the first time, personal documents, in particular, letters, biographical and autobiographical materials, etc., were widely used as an empirical basis for research. Social psychology was defined as “ Scientific research installations". It was then that the study of attitudes became firmly established in the main problems of Western social psychology.

It is important to note the fact that in American experimental social psychology there were also deviations from the main methodological direction, when, as a result of the Great Depression and during the Second World War, the pressure of social problems became extremely noticeable. This required cooperation and consistency from social psychologists. Thus, in the 1930s, the Society for the Psychological Research of Social Problems was created. And in response to the aggression of the Nazis and their satellites in the 40s, social psychologists from different countries tried to help their peoples win the war. The German-American psychologist Kurt Lewin (1890-1947 pp.) is considered one of those researchers who observed the situation both in his native country and throughout Europe. He turned his interest to social psychology by placing his "field theory" on groups. His use of constructive rather than classifying methods allowed him to experiment with groups. The researcher and his followers also worked with groups in the daily life of local communities to change group behavior, morality, etc. Scientific activity scientist is associated with the further spread of the method of laboratory experiment in social psychology. At the same time, studying in his school of "group dynamics" such socio-psychological phenomena as the effectiveness of group interaction, leadership style, group cohesion, conformism, making a group decision, the researcher tried in this way to solve much wider social problems, i.e. extrapolate the results of the experiments to the wider social environment. Therefore, K. Lsvin, on the one hand, believed that it was the laboratory experiment that was a purely scientific method that allows one to penetrate deeper into the secrets of human behavior, and on the other hand, he did not turn this method into an end in itself, but only a means of practical solution of social and political problems. problems. In general, a feature of K. Levin's practical research is that they were united by a common theoretical concept. Despite the fact that the “field theory” he developed raises objections among some, after his death, Western psychology did not have any general theory at all.

Further experimental studies are carried out on the basis of the so-called theories of the average level, which do not search for general patterns of human behavior, but only explain some of its aspects. Through this situation, two important questions arose primarily in American social psychology:

The practical significance of applied research carried out using the method of laboratory experiment (we are talking about the validity of the data obtained in this way, the possibility of their extrapolation to social reality, etc.);

An analysis of those theoretical orientations in line with which modern Western social psychology operates.

In theoretical terms, at least four main approaches have been clearly defined: psychoanalysis, behaviorism, cognitivism, and interactionism (Table 1). Social psychology began to rely on the ideas formulated within the framework of precisely these approaches. However, special emphasis was placed on the behavioral approach, which corresponded to the experimental direction of the discipline.

Psychoanalysis is not widely used in social psychology. Neo-Freudianism, relying on the socio-psychological ideas of 3. Freud and its own developments, created a specific social psychology. Its representatives are trying to overcome the biologism of classical Freudianism and introduce its main provisions to the social context. Other theories are also known that directly introduce the ideas of classical Freudianism into the orbit of social psychology. In particular, we are talking about the theory of group processes. Here there are attempts to move away from dyadic interactions and consider a number of processes in numerous groups. It is believed that it was in line with this trend that the practice of creating T-groups (training groups) was born.

Behaviorism was one of the first to address socio-psychological issues. Within the framework of this direction, a number of ideas were developed that are of interest and value today. First of all, these are the problems of social aggression and its possible determinants, ways and methods of social learning, technologies of interpersonal interaction, etc. Nowadays, behaviorism in social psychology uses those variants of this trend that are associated with neobehaviorism. It distinguishes two directions: the introduction of the idea of ​​intermediate variables and the preservation of the most orthodox forms of classical behaviorism. C. Hull, B. Skinner, A. Bandura, N. Miller. Cognitivism Cognitivism originates from Gestalt psychology and K. Lewin's field theory. The initial principle is the analysis of behavior in terms of cognitive processes individual. A special place in this direction is occupied by the theory of cognitive correspondence. They proceed from the position that the main motivating factor in the behavior of an individual is the need to establish a correspondence, a balance of his cognitive structure. These theories include: the theory of balanced structures by F. Heider, the theory of communicative acts by T. Newcomb, the theory of cognitive dissonance by L. Festinger, and others. Cognitive orientation is becoming more and more encouraged. Analysis of human behavior on the basis of taking into account the subjective world of the individual, the internal motivation of his actions and external reactions; the main attention is paid to the problems of communication through symbols and language, the role behavior of the individual and the norms governing social interaction. Interactionism is the only theoretical orientation sociological in origin, its source was the theory of symbolic interactionism J. Mead, E. Hoffman, M. Sheriff

J. Mead, based on the understanding of the group as a whole. This integrity prevails over the individual. That is why the behavior of a person in a group is interpreted and analyzed within the framework of a holistic group activity. In this direction, to a greater extent than in other theoretical orientations, an attempt was made to establish precisely the social determinants of human behavior. For this purpose, the concept of “interaction” is introduced as a defining concept, during which the formation of personality is carried out. In the field of interactionism, theories have been formed: role behavior, the reference group as a source of personal norms and values ​​of a person, etc.

After World War II, until the early 1960s, American social psychology dominated the world. From weighty in the scientific literature, two events that occurred in the social psychology of the United States are distinguished. The first is connected with the transition from the behavioral to the cognitive approach, and the second - from the broader to the narrower theoretical substantiation of socio-psychological phenomena. Currently social significance major research work has been criticized before the European social psychology. Researchers in American social psychology point to another phenomenon that has taken place here over the past two decades: a change in the status of American social psychology - a transition from a rather low status to a more respectable one. Now in the USA there is a further expansion of the sphere of socio-psychological work in the theoretical and applied direction, the emergence of new scientific centers. The publication in 1968 of the multi-volume Manual of Social Psychology is considered an important milestone in the development of the discipline. This fundamental work, repeatedly reprinted, still plays the role of a weighty encyclopedia of socio-psychological knowledge.

European social psychology in the pre-war period did not have decent institutions, but was represented only by individual scientists who were more or less interested in this discipline. For example, J. Piaget worked in Switzerland, whose works influenced the modern concept of socialization, in particular, its moral aspect. In Germany, socio-psychological problems have found their distribution thanks to V. Medea. After World War II, this trend continued. The exchange of socio-psychological information occurred only between individual scientific centers Europe and USA. For a long time, the United States has been a model for scientists in Western Europe. That is why everything that took place in the development of American social psychology was perceived and assimilated. Together, their own research was viewed through the prism of American approaches. However, since the 1960s and especially in the 1970s, there has been a revival in the development of European social psychology. Formerly it appeared in the critique of American social psychology. The main pathos of criticism was directed at the simplified understanding of the social context, accepted in American science. An attempt to give this science the status of a natural discipline was considered unsuccessful. Just as unacceptable were the human models on which American social psychology is based.

In parallel with critical views, European social psychology is beginning to develop its own currents and directions. The European Association for Experimental Social Psychology, which was founded in 1966, is characterized by the idea that social psychology needs to be more oriented towards real social problems and to provide a social context for research. A significant contribution to its development was made by such psychologists as G. Tejfel (Great Britain), S Moscovici (France) and others. In particular, it is argued that social psychology should not continue experiments and turn into scientific and natural disciplines. Social psychology must consider itself in the context of a real socio-cultural situation. So, S Moscovici notes that social life is the basis of both communication and ideology. The principles of communication, in turn, reproduce social relations. That is why the study of these phenomena should become the task for which social psychology is intended. G. Tejfel also formulated a number of important provisions. According to him, social psychology is the science of social behavior a person who needs: to take into account the relationship between the individual's behavior and his social environment; not to pretend to seeming objectivity; to subordinate the research method of the theory to the research goals; be aware of and take into account the social significance and responsibility of socio-psychological research and theoretical conclusions. As we can see, each of these researchers, however, in his own way, defends the positions of sociological social psychology.

In total, modern Western social psychology is not based on any one holistic theory. In the absence of criteria for a clear differentiation of approaches, it is extremely difficult to determine the leading theoretical orientations of Western social psychology. It is known that in the 1960s, American psychologists proposed two principles for analyzing the theoretical positions of a scientist: his understanding of human nature and the main issues of research. Subsequently, an attempt was made to specify these two principles by introducing six criteria for distinguishing theoretical approaches, in particular: the main source of data for observation; concepts used to explain motivation or the personality as a whole, the meaning of consciousness in behavior; the role of the unconscious in behavior; the influence of the external environment; the role of the socio-cultural environment. Based on these criteria, most American social psychologists distinguish three psychological directions: behaviorism, psychoanalysis, cognitivism, and one sociological - interactionism. However, it is known that not all representatives of the psychological direction single out interactionism as a theoretical orientation of social psychology. What is the fundamental difference between the interactionist orientation and those that originate in psychology? First of all, in the very approach to the analysis of phenomena. Thus, for interactionism, it is not a single individual that is decisive, but the social process as a whole or the interaction of individuals in a group and society. This understanding of the concept of "interaction" (from the English. Interaction - interaction) differs from that which is given in psychologically oriented directions. For example, in the cognitivist and neobehaviorist orientations, interaction is seen as an external condition for the formation of social psychology.

In modern foreign social psychology, considerable attention is paid to the psychology of interpersonal interaction (interaction), human behavior in a social organization, and the psychology of an organization. living environment human, management psychology, marketing and social management. Research in the field of psychophysiology is being intensively developed.

Most significant direction in modern foreign social psychology - interactionism - highlights the problem social interaction- interaction. This direction is based on the views of the famous sociologist and social psychologist George Herbert Mead (1863–1931).

Representatives of this direction (M. Kuhn, A. Rose, T. Shibutani * and others) brought to the fore a complex of socio-psychological problems: communication, communication, social norms, social roles, the status of an individual in a group, a reference group, etc. The conceptual apparatus developed by J. Mead and his followers is widespread in socio-psychological science. Major achievement this direction is the recognition of the social conditionality of the individual's psyche. Psychology ceased to be interpreted as the psychology of the individual; general psychology became more and more integrated with social psychology.

Hundreds of thousands of physical experiments have been carried out over the thousand-year history of science. It is difficult to select a few "most-most." Among the physicists of the United States and Western Europe, a survey was conducted. Researchers Robert Creese and Stoney Book asked them to name the most beautiful physics experiments in history. A researcher at the Laboratory of Neutrino Astrophysics spoke about the experiments included in the top ten according to the results of a selective survey of Kriz and Buk high energy, Candidate of Physical and Mathematical Sciences Igor Sokalsky.

1. Experiment of Eratosthenes of Cyrene

One of the oldest known physical experiments, as a result of which the radius of the Earth was measured, was carried out in the 3rd century BC by the librarian of the famous Library of Alexandria, Erastofen of Cyrene. The scheme of the experiment is simple. At noon, on the day of the summer solstice, in the city of Siena (now Aswan), the Sun was at its zenith and objects did not cast shadows. On the same day and at the same time in the city of Alexandria, located 800 kilometers from Siena, the Sun deviated from the zenith by about 7 °. This is about 1/50th of a full circle (360°), which gives the Earth a circumference of 40,000 kilometers and a radius of 6,300 kilometers. It seems almost unbelievable that the radius of the Earth measured by such a simple method turned out to be only 5% less value obtained by the most accurate modern methods, according to the site "Chemistry and Life".

2. Experiment of Galileo Galilei

In the 17th century, the point of view of Aristotle dominated, who taught that the speed of the fall of a body depends on its mass. The heavier the body, the faster it falls. Observations that each of us can make in everyday life would seem to confirm this. Try to release a light toothpick and a heavy stone at the same time. The stone will touch the ground faster. Such observations led Aristotle to the conclusion about the fundamental property of the force with which the Earth attracts other bodies. In fact, the rate of fall is affected not only by the force of gravity, but also by the force of air resistance. The ratio of these forces for light and heavy objects is different, which leads to the observed effect.

The Italian Galileo Galilei doubted the correctness of Aristotle's conclusions and found a way to test them. To do this, he dropped a cannonball and a much lighter musket ball from the Leaning Tower of Pisa at the same moment. Both bodies had approximately the same streamlined shape, therefore, for both the core and the bullet, the air resistance forces were negligible compared to the forces of attraction. Galileo found that both objects reach the ground at the same moment, that is, the speed of their fall is the same.

The results obtained by Galileo are a consequence of the law of universal gravitation and the law according to which the acceleration experienced by a body is directly proportional to the force acting on it and inversely proportional to the mass.

3. Another experiment of Galileo Galilei

Galileo measured the distance that the balls rolling on an inclined board overcame in equal time intervals, measured by the author of the experiment using a water clock. The scientist found that if the time is doubled, the balls will roll four times further. This quadratic relationship meant that the balls under the influence of gravity move accelerated, which contradicted Aristotle's accepted belief for 2000 years that bodies subject to a force move at a constant speed, whereas if a force is not applied to a body, then it rests. The results of this experiment by Galileo, as well as the results of his experiment with the Leaning Tower of Pisa, later served as the basis for formulating the laws of classical mechanics.

4. Henry Cavendish experiment

After Isaac Newton formulated the law of universal gravitation: the force of attraction between two bodies with masses Mit, distant from each other at a distance r, is equal to F = γ (mM / r2), it remained to determine the value of the gravitational constant γ - To do this, it was necessary to measure the force attraction between two bodies with known masses. This is not so easy to do, because the force of attraction is very small. We feel the gravity of the earth. But it is impossible to feel the attraction of even a very large mountain that is nearby, because it is very weak.

A very subtle and sensitive method was needed. It was invented and applied in 1798 by Newton's compatriot Henry Cavendish. He used a torsion balance, a yoke with two balls suspended from a very thin cord. Cavendish measured the displacement of the rocker (turn) when approaching the balls of weights of other balls of greater mass. To increase the sensitivity, the displacement was determined from the light spots reflected from the mirrors fixed on the rocker balls. As a result of this experiment, Cavendish was able to quite accurately determine the value of the gravitational constant and for the first time calculate the mass of the Earth.

5. The experiment of Jean Bernard Foucault

French physicist Jean Bernard Léon Foucault in 1851 experimentally proved the rotation of the Earth around its axis using a 67-meter pendulum suspended from the top of the dome of the Paris Pantheon. The swing plane of the pendulum remains unchanged relative to the stars. The observer, who is on the Earth and rotates with it, sees that the plane of rotation slowly turns in the direction opposite to the direction of the Earth's rotation.

6. Isaac Newton's experiment

In 1672, Isaac Newton did a simple experiment that is described in all school textbooks. Having closed the shutters, he made a small hole in them, through which a ray of sunlight passed. A prism was placed in the path of the beam, and a screen was placed behind the prism. On the screen, Newton observed a "rainbow": a white sunbeam, passing through a prism, turned into several colored rays - from purple to red. This phenomenon is called light dispersion.

Sir Isaac was not the first to observe this phenomenon. Already at the beginning of our era, it was known that large single crystals of natural origin have the property of decomposing light into colors. The first studies of the dispersion of light in experiments with glass triangular prism even before Newton, the Englishman Khariot and the Czech naturalist Marci performed.

However, prior to Newton, such observations were not subjected to serious analysis, and the conclusions drawn from them were not rechecked by additional experiments. Both Chariot and Martzi remained followers of Aristotle, who argued that the difference in color is determined by the difference in the amount of darkness "mixed" with white light. Violet color, according to Aristotle, occurs with the greatest addition of darkness to light, and red - with the least. Newton did additional experiments with crossed prisms, when light passed through one prism then passes through another. Based on the totality of his experiments, he concluded that “no color arises from whiteness and blackness mixed together, except for intermediate dark

the amount of light does not change the appearance of the color." He showed that White light should be considered as a component. The main colors are from purple to red.

This experiment by Newton is a wonderful example of how different people, observing the same phenomenon, interpret it differently, and only those who question their interpretation and make additional experiments come to the correct conclusions.

7. Thomas Young's experiment

Until the beginning of the 19th century, ideas about the corpuscular nature of light prevailed. Light was considered to consist of separate particles - corpuscles. Although the phenomena of diffraction and interference of light were observed by Newton ("Newton's rings"), the generally accepted point of view remained corpuscular.

Considering the waves on the surface of the water from two thrown stones, you can see how, overlapping each other, the waves can interfere, that is, cancel out or mutually reinforce each other. Based on this, the English physicist and physician Thomas Young made experiments in 1801 with a beam of light that passed through two holes in an opaque screen, thus forming two independent light sources, similar to two stones thrown into water. As a result, he observed an interference pattern consisting of alternating dark and white bands, which could not have formed if the light consisted of corpuscles. The dark bands corresponded to zones where the light waves from the two slits cancel each other out. Light streaks appeared where the light waves mutually amplified. Thus, the wave nature of light was proved.

8. Klaus Jonsson's experiment

The German physicist Klaus Jonsson conducted an experiment in 1961 similar to Thomas Young's light interference experiment. The difference was that instead of beams of light, Jonsson used electron beams. He obtained an interference pattern similar to that which Jung observed for light waves. This confirmed the correctness of the provisions quantum mechanics about the mixed corpuscular-wave nature of elementary particles.

9. Robert Milliken's experiment

The idea that the electric charge of any body is discrete (that is, it consists of a larger or smaller set of elementary charges that are no longer subject to fragmentation) arose in early XIX century and was supported by such famous physicists as M. Faraday and G. Helmholtz. The term "electron" was introduced into the theory, denoting a certain particle - the carrier of an elementary electric charge. This term, however, was at that time purely formal, since neither the particle itself nor the elementary electric charge associated with it were discovered experimentally. In 1895, K. Roentgen, during experiments with a discharge tube, discovered that its anode, under the action of rays flying from the cathode, is capable of emitting its own, X-rays, or Roentgen rays. In the same year, the French physicist J. Perrin experimentally proved that cathode rays are a stream of negatively charged particles. But, despite the colossal experimental material, the electron remained a hypothetical particle, since there was not a single experiment in which individual electrons would participate.

The American physicist Robert Milliken developed a method that has become a classic example of an elegant physical experiment. Millikan managed to isolate several charged water droplets in space between the capacitor plates. By illuminating with X-rays, it was possible to slightly ionize the air between the plates and change the charge of the droplets. When the field between the plates was switched on, the droplet slowly moved upward under the action of electric attraction. With the field turned off, it descended under the influence of gravity. By turning the field on and off, it was possible to study each of the droplets suspended between the plates for 45 seconds, after which they evaporated. By 1909, it was possible to determine that the charge of any droplet was always an integer multiple of the fundamental value e (electron charge). This was strong evidence that the electrons were particles with the same charge and mass. By replacing water droplets with oil droplets, Millikan was able to increase the duration of observations to 4.5 hours, and in 1913, eliminating possible sources of error one by one, published the first measured value of the electron charge: e = (4.774 ± 0.009) x 10-10 electrostatic units .

10. Ernst Rutherford's experiment

By the beginning of the 20th century, it had become clear that atoms were made up of negatively charged electrons and some sort of positive charge, which kept the atom generally neutral. However, there were too many assumptions about what this “positive-negative” system looks like, while experimental data that would make it possible to make a choice in favor of one or another model was clearly lacking. Most physicists have accepted J.J. Thomson's model: the atom is a uniformly charged positive ball about 108 cm in diameter with negative electrons floating inside.

In 1909, Ernst Rutherford (assisted by Hans Geiger and Ernst Marsden) set up an experiment to understand the actual structure of the atom. In this experiment, heavy positively charged a-particles moving at a speed of 20 km/s passed through a thin gold foil and scattered on the gold atoms, deviating from their original direction of motion. To determine the degree of deflection, Geiger and Marsden had to observe, using a microscope, flashes on the scintillator plate that occurred where an a particle hit the plate. In two years, about a million flashes were counted and it was proved that about one particle in 8000, as a result of scattering, changes the direction of motion by more than 90 ° (that is, turns back). This could not have happened in a "loose" Thomson atom. The results unequivocally testified in favor of the so-called planetary model of the atom - a massive tiny nucleus with dimensions of about 10-13 cm and electrons revolving around this nucleus at a distance of about 10-8 cm.

Modern physical experiments are much more complicated than the experiments of the past. In some devices, they are placed on areas of tens of thousands of square kilometers, in others they fill a volume of the order of a cubic kilometer. And still others will soon be held on other planets.