Famous Psychological Experiments.
David ROSENHAN (1929-2012) Being sane in insane places
On Being Sane in Insane Places, Science, 1973
The Anti-psychiatric movement (T.Szasz: The Myth of Mental Illness), the end of the Vietnam war
Psychiatrist title x actual competence to distinguish insanity from sanity
Our perception of the world - a matter of perspective (being overwhelmed by our own subjectivity)
Professor of Law and Psychiatry at Stanford University
Design of the experiment
Eight volunteers – 3 women, 5 men (3 psychologists, psychiatrist, pediatrician, student, painter, and a housewife)
One month (October 1972)
Every single subject at a different psychiatric hospital (a wide array of clinic standards)
At the entry examination: False name and occupation Auditory hallucinations –voice saying “Thud, Empty and Hollow” No other referred symptoms
After the admission – immediately reporting the voice has disappeared and everything feels fine
The experiment
Clear instructions on how to report the symptoms
Limiting personal hygiene (creating the shady impression), training how to avoid swallowing the pills
Fear of the medications, fear of getting raped
Shock upon experiencing the treatment by the psychiatric staff – „the invisible“
Violent behavior by some of the staff members
Sanity of the pseudopatiens often recognized by the fellow patients instead of the staff
The procedure of the experiment
Diagnosis on admission (7x schizophrenia and 1x bipolar affective disorder)
Diagnosis on release: illness in remission
Duration of the hospitalization 7 – 52 days; 19 days on average
The significance of „the label“ - real information evaluated through the bias of the anticipated diagnosis
Criticism
Large response – defense of biological psychiatry
Robert Spitzer (Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1975) Methodology and research conclusion, problems of verification
One hospital administration challenged Rosenhan to send pseudopatients to its facility, whom its staff would then detect. Rosenhan agreed and in the following weeks out of 193 new patients the staff identified 41 as potential pseudopatients - Rosenhan had sent no one to the hospital.
Conclusion
Debate on the scientific rigor of psychiatric diagnosis and psychiatry as a discipline itselfAn impulse to update the DSMA question of the societal pressure on the identification of mental illnesses.The quality of the psychiatric care
Later similar experiments (Slater in 80s – no hospitalizations, more welcoming approach, antipsychotics, eventually AD, most frequent dgn. psychotic depression)
Context
Rozenthal, Jacobson (1966) – The expectation effectA fictitious test – a scholar aptitude tests of the children – the result presented to the teachers as a prediction of the future progress of the studentsAfter one year, the students randomly selected as the talented ones improved in the school subjects as well as, surprisingly, the IQ tests.
A self-fulfilling prophecy – a social projection, that has an influence on the reality strong enough to eventually become the truth(the attitude towards oneself, the evaluation of the others, expectancies of the future )The Golem effect, the Pygmalion effect
Elisabeth LOFTUS (born 1944) False memories
A professor at the Washington University (as well as various other universities)
Cognitive psychology, psychology of the memory
Involved in the forensic psychology
Many internationally recognized experiments as well as honorary degrees
Several hateful reactions (had to hire personal bodyguards)
Tackled the issue of child abuse
Original experiments
A large amount of experimental work on the inaccuracy of memoriesThe memory is suggestibleThe influence of the question
Yellow light on the traffic lightsA man with a beardA speed of the car, the broken glass
How I got lost…The design of the experiment
The creation of an experimental memory, that would remind the participant of the trauma without having a traumatic effect in itself
24 participants– each is assigned a notebook containing the of three true stories from their childhood (the stories were rewritten in accordance with the reports of their relatives) and one fictitious story (created with the cooperation of the relatives) about getting lost in a shopping centre – just one article long.
The participant enters the lab, reads the notebook and then is supposed to add their own memories – if they didn‘t remember a particular story, they‘d just write that they don‘t remember
Participants are made to repeatedly tell their „childhood stories“ after a certain time interval
The results
25% participants claimed to remember the memory of getting lost in a shopping centre
Including details that the participants made up themselves (but trusted them as if those were the „real memories“)
Increase of the details as the time interval grew longer (after two days, a week, several weeks) – confabulation
The soft towels, the blinking light bulbs, the genre of music, an old balding man wearing a blue flannel jacket and glasses…
The witness problematic
Deconstruction of some of the testimonies of child abuse
Influence of the context including some types of the psychotherapy
Deconstruction of the concept of the supression
A memory suppressed for many years that suddenly emerges with many vivid details included
Controversy: you make the victims seem as the liars
The iniciative for the defense of parents accused of child abuse, as well as other cases of accusations
J.DARLEY(born 1938) B.LATANÉ(born1937)The Bystander effectSocial psychology
The bystander effect- the more people are in proximity to a situation potentially dangerous to someone else, the less likely they are to intervene to help the said person in danger
The reason for this is presumed to be the idea that the person can rely on the others to help or otherwise take care of the situation
Darley, J. M. & Latané, B., 1968, Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology.
The case of Kitty Genovese
A 28 year old woman murdered on 13.3.1964 in Queens, New York early in the morning
Assaulted and repeatedly stabbed, she shouted for help. The people watching the situation from her window shouted at the assaulter to leave the woman alone but never actually helped the woman.
38 people witnessed the murder and no one intervened to help the victim A strong reaction of the public, some even demanded trial for the witnesses
An intense discussion among the specialised circles on why the people didn‘t help
Design of the experiment Presented as a research on the adaptation of the students to the life on the campus The participant was seated in an empty room with a microphone, told to describe their student life for two minutes when their turn comes There were sound recordings of two minute speeches from other students played from other rooms, the participant was convinced that there were other people parttaking in the experiment at the same time In the first recording, a student described their struggles with epilepsy and the stress they undergo After another recording, the speaking time for the participant followed, then possibly other recordings as well Then a recording of the „epileptic seizure“ of the first student was played out, a six minute semi-coherent speech ending in callings for help
The procedure of the experiment
31% of the participants tried to help
The sizes of „groups“ differed – the smaller group was the participant convinced to be a part of, the more likely he was to help
Out of the participants thought to be alone with the „student having a seizure“ 85% called for help in under three minutes
The participants who didn‘t react on the calls for help were very nervous, scared, commented on the situation, but they weren‘t able to get themselves to decide to intervene
Smoke in the room a second experimentWhat if we ourselves – while surrounded by others – end up in a
dangerous situation?The definiteness of the threatThe cohesion of the groupThe diffusion of responsibilityThe participant is meant to fill out a questionnaire on the nature of the life on the campus while seated in a room that will at one point start visibly filling up with smoke.If the participant sits in the room alone, he leaves the room to get help almost immediately.If the participant sits in the room with other students who show no signs of concern about the smoke (informed contributors to the experiment), they won‘ t reach out to get any kind of help
The thought processes the intervening bystander undergoes:
1. noticing that there is a problem
2. realising that an intervention is necessary
3. taking the personal responsibility
4. deciding on what the action should look like
5. taking the action
S. Milgram (1933 –1984)Obedience of the authority An advert in the newspaper – was announced as a research of learning process (and offered 4 USD for participation)
A room with a microphone and a speaker, a board with buttons labelled with voltages from 15 V to 450 V (including descriptions such as: a minor shock, a severe hit…the last button being labelled with a cross)
„An examination of the pain on the learning process“ – the participant is supposed to give the other person electric shocks if giving a wrong answer
The participant hears the „student“ sob at 75 V, scream at 120 V, groan that they can‘t bear the pain anymore at 180 V, and further escalating, ending with plain silence after the 300 V.
The „leader of the experiment“ was present in the participant‘s room, encouraging him: „Please, continue“, „It is necessary for you to continue“ etc.
All of the participants continued up until the 300 V and 63% of the participants continuued until the end of the scale, although they did so with hesitation and expressed their concern, that the „student“ may die.
As a proof that a cruel and inhumane behavior towards another human being - can also be caused just by plain obedience.
Many „teachers“ directly said that their „student“ is responsible for their suffering (he entered the test voluntarily and didn‘t know what he was supposed to know)
The participants were informed about the actual purpose and procedure of the experiment.
The study was critisized for its ethical complications (deception of the participant, stressful and potentially traumatizing enviroment for the participants…)
S.Milgram, Obedience to Authority, 1974.
L.Festinger (1919-1989) Cognitive dissonance
The cognitive dissonance – people are more likely to change their opinions and principles than to change their behaviourThe solution of a situation showing a conflict of stances is (mostly) decided by their current behaviour (they are more likely to suppress the opinion). A sect led by Dorothy Martin who believed she was receiving information from extra-terrestrial creatures who have been warning her about the apocalypse. Festinger (and his students) joined the sect to study it undercover Martin set the date of the apocalypse. Once the date passed and no apocalypse happened, she declared that the world has been saved by the rays of light that came from the members of the sect.The faith of the members of the sect was not threatened, but actually strengthened He verified his hypothesis in praxisL.Festinger: Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, 1957
P.Zimbardo Stanford prison experiment Stanford University 1971 24 volunteers – physically and mentally healthy, balanced
individuals randomly divided into two groups – the prisoners and the guards (12+12)
All of them were paid for the participation, fully aware that they were partaking in a social experiment.
The rules (inspired by the Palo Alto prison) The prisoner must be completely quit doing mealtime, after
the lights go down and outside of the prison The prisoners must call the guards by the title Mr. Correctional
Officer, the prisoners are to be addressed by numbers Any mistake or failure of a prisoner may be punished, the guards
may use any method except for the physical violence The guards: 15 USD a day, mirror sunglasses a wooden baton The prisoners: sans underwear, a chain around the ankles
.
The experiment had to be cancelled after six days – an unexpected violence of the guards, a rebellion of the prisoners, psychological breakdowns… Drastic change of behavior mainly in case of the guards, shocking for both researchers and participants
A healthy individual, when subjected to extreme conditions, may drastically change their behavior in a very short time
Criticism of the study Not very representative data (a small number of participants)
The experiment takes one‘s responsibility for their own action A risk of a long term damage on the participants
Awareness of the fact it‘s an experiment x a real situation (concentration camps)
Significant differences in the behavior of the guards (a role of individual personality traits)
Recommended
