10 bizarre psychology experiments that completely crossed the line

Shopping Cart

Articles & Insights

Expand your mind and be inspired with Achology's paradigm-shifting articles. All inspired by the world's greatest minds!

13 Morally Dubious Psychology Experiments That Crossed the Line

By benjamin lockwood, this article is divided into the following sections:, controversial studies.

In the quest to understand the human mind and behavior, psychologists have often devised experiments that defy convention, challenge ethical boundaries, and sometimes, outrightly cross the line. Some of these studies, while contributing to our knowledge, have sparked intense debates about the cost of such knowledge and the lengths researchers are willing to go in pursuit of it. This article delves into 13 morally dubious psychology experiments that completely crossed the line. We will journey through some of the most controversial studies in the history of psychology, which, despite their ethical transgressions, have left indelible marks on the field.

From experiments that manipulated people into obedience to those that explored the depths of human cruelty, these studies reveal the darker side of psychological research. As we navigate these murky waters, readers are invited to ponder the interplay between scientific discovery and ethical responsibility. While these experiments may be unsettling, they serve as stark reminders of the importance of maintaining ethical standards in all psychological endeavours.

13 Morally Dubious Psychology Experiments

The little albert experiment.

The Little Albert Experiment was a study conducted by psychologist John B. Watson and his graduate student, Rosalie Rayner, at Johns Hopkins University. The subject of the experiment was a nine-month-old baby boy named Albert. Initially, the baby showed no fear of several stimuli including a white rat. However, Watson and Rayner paired the sight of the rat with a sudden loud noise, which naturally frightened Albert. Over time, Albert began to associate the white rat with the frightening noise and reacted with fear even when the noise wasn’t presented. This experiment demonstrated classical conditioning—an aspect of behaviorist theory—in humans. It showed how a fear response in Albert could be induced through pairing a neutral stimulus (the rat) with an aversive stimulus (the loud noise).

The Monster Study (1939):

The Monster Study was a stuttering experiment conducted on 22 orphan children in Davenport, Iowa in 1939. Wendell Johnson , who was a speech pathologist at the University of Iowa, and his graduate student, Mary Tudor, were responsible for the experiment. They aimed to induce stuttering in healthy children. The children were divided into two groups. One group received positive speech therapy, where children were praised for their fluency in speech. The other group received negative speech therapy, where children were criticized for every mistake made, leading some of them to develop speech problems. The ethical implications of the experiment were significant and caused controversy in the field.

Project MK-Ultra (1953-1973):

Project MK-Ultra was a covert operation organised by the CIA that researched methods and drugs to be utilised in interrogations and torture with the aim of weakening individuals and forcing confessions through mind control. The project involved a wide array of tests, including administering LSD and other drugs to unsuspecting individuals, hypnosis, sensory deprivation, isolation, and even verbal and sexual abuse. The project was officially sanctioned in 1953 and reduced in scope in 1964, further curtailed in 1967, and officially halted in 1973. The program engaged in many illegal activities and has been widely regarded as a major violation of human rights.

The Milgram Experiment (1961):

The Milgram Experiment was a series of social psychology experiments conducted by Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram . Participants were told they were participating in a study about learning and memory, and were instructed to administer electric shocks to another participant (actually a confederate of the experimenter) whenever they answered a question incorrectly. The intensity of the shocks increased with each incorrect answer. Despite hearing the confederate’s increasingly desperate pleas to stop, many participants continued to administer what they believed were harmful electric shocks, simply because they were instructed to do so by the authority figure (the experimenter). Milgram’s research demonstrated the power of obedience to authority and has had a lasting impact on understanding of human behavior.

Bobo Doll Experiment (1961, 1963):

The Bobo Doll Experiment was a study conducted by psychologist Albert Bandura to investigate whether children’s behaviors could be influenced by observing others. In the experiment, children watched a video where an adult model behaved aggressively towards a Bobo doll (a large inflatable doll). After watching the video, the children were then placed in a room with a Bobo doll to see how they would behave. Many of the children imitated the aggressive behavior they had observed, suggesting that they had learned the behavior through observational learning. This experiment was seminal in the development of Bandura’s Social Learning Theory, which posits that people learn new behaviors by observing others.

Homosexual Aversion Therapy (1967):

Homosexual aversion therapy was a controversial practice in the mid-20th century that aimed to change an individual’s sexual orientation from homosexual or bisexual to heterosexual using psychological or physical interventions. In 1967, British researchers MacCulloch and Feldman used aversion therapy on 43 homosexuals, documenting their methods and results. The therapy involved associating homosexual stimuli with something unpleasant, like a nausea-inducing drug or electric shocks, in an attempt to condition patients away from homosexual behavior. This practice has since been condemned by major mental health organizations due to its unethical nature and lack of scientific validity.

The Third Wave (1967):

The Third Wave was a social experiment conducted by high school history teacher Ron Jones in California. He created a mock fascist movement in his classroom to illustrate how people could be manipulated under authoritarian social structures. The experiment spiraled out of control as students became increasingly engrossed in the movement, demonstrating obedience and conformity to the point where they reported fellow students who were not complying with the rules. The experiment ended after five days when Jones revealed the purpose of the experiment and compared the movement to the Nazi regime.

Learned Helplessness Experiment (1967):

Psychologist Martin Seligman conducted this experiment to understand the phenomenon of learned helplessness. He subjected dogs to electric shocks, with some dogs given the ability to stop the shocks by pressing a lever and others not. The dogs who couldn’t control the shocks eventually stopped trying to avoid them, even when given the opportunity to escape. This behavior was termed “learned helplessness”, where an individual suffers from a sense of powerlessness, arising from persistent failure to succeed or escape. It has been applied to many clinical conditions including depression.

David Reimer (1967–1977):

David Reimer was born biologically male, but after a botched circumcision, he was raised as a girl following advice from psychologist John Money, who believed that gender identity was entirely a result of nurture, not nature. Despite efforts to socialize Reimer as female, he self-identified as male during adolescence. Reimer’s case challenged prevailing ideas about gender identity, suggesting that biology plays a significant role in determining gender. This case also raised serious ethical questions about the treatment of children with intersex conditions or catastrophic injuries.

The Blue Eyes/Brown Eyes Exercise (1968):

This exercise was a famous experiment conducted by elementary school teacher Jane Elliott in Iowa following the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. She divided her third-grade class into two groups based on eye color — blue-eyed and brown-eyed students. On the first day, she labeled the blue-eyed group as superior, leading to dramatic changes in behavior and academic performance. On the next day, she reversed the roles. The exercise demonstrated how easily discrimination can be learned, and the negative impacts of arbitrary divisions within social groups. It was a profound lesson in empathy and the destructive power of prejudice and racism.

Monkey Drug Trials (1969):

The Monkey Drug Trials were a series of experiments conducted in 1969 to study the effects of drug use and addiction. This research involved self-administration of various psychoactive substances by monkeys and rats. The animals had access to drugs such as morphine, cocaine, codeine, amphetamine, and alcohol, and they could self-administer these substances at will. The objective was to understand the addictive nature of these substances and their effects on the body and mind. The research concluded that all tested substances had potential for abuse, and the animals developed a psychological dependence on them. The trials spurred discussions about ethical treatment of animals in research due to the distressing conditions the test subjects were put under.

The Stanford Prison Experiment (1971):

This is one of the most famous social psychology experiments ever conducted. Led by psychologist Philip Zimbardo at Stanford University, this study aimed to investigate the psychological impacts of perceived power and the dynamics between prisoners and prison officers. Volunteers were randomly assigned roles of either prisoners or guards in a mock prison set up in the basement of the Stanford psychology building. The experiment quickly escalated, with “guards” becoming increasingly abusive towards “prisoners”, mirroring real-life abuses in prison. The experiment was planned to last two weeks but was terminated after just six days due to its intense and unexpected results. The experiment demonstrated the power of situational forces on behaviors and questioned the nature of individual identity in social contexts.

UCLA Schizophrenia Experiment (1983–1994):

This long-term study, also known as the “UCLA Family Study,” was conducted by researchers at the University of California, Los Angeles. They aimed to determine whether schizophrenia is rooted in genetics or environment. The study involved families with at least one member diagnosed with schizophrenia and compared them to control families. They found that individuals with a schizophrenic sibling or parent were ten times more likely to develop the disorder, suggesting a strong genetic component. However, they also found that environmental factors played a significant role, particularly in triggering the onset of the disease.

In conclusion

In conclusion, psychological experiments, while sometimes controversial and ethically questionable, have undeniably contributed significantly to our understanding of human behavior. They have not only illuminated the complexities of human nature but also challenged our views on power dynamics, conformity, addiction, identity, and mental health. However, they also serve as a stark reminder of the ethical boundaries that must be respected in scientific research. As Albert Einstein once said, “Concern for man and his fate must always form the chief interest of all technical endeavours.”

These Morally Dubious Psychology Experiments underscore the importance of maintaining a balance between psychological advancement and ethical considerations. From Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment, we learn a chilling lesson about the dark side of human nature when placed in positions of power. In the words of Lord Acton, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” It is essential to remember these lessons as we navigate the complexities of human interaction, societal structures, and the pursuit of knowledge.

Browse Achology Quotes:

► Book Recommendation of the Month

The ultimate life coaching handbook by kain ramsay.

A Comprehensive Guide to the Methodology, Principles and practice of Life Coaching

Misconceptions and industry shortcomings make life coaching frequently misunderstood, as many so-called coaches fail to achieve real results. The lack of wise guidance further fuels this widespread skepticism and distrust.

Get updates from the Academy of Modern Applied Psychology

About Achology

Useful links, our policies, our 7 schools, connect with us, © 2024 achology.

There was a problem reporting this post.

Block Member?

Please confirm you want to block this member.

You will no longer be able to:

• Mention this member in posts

Please allow a few minutes for this process to complete.

Log in or Sign up

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly. You should upgrade or use an alternative browser .

10 Bizarre Psychology Experiments that Completely Crossed the Line

Discussion in ' Psychiatry ' started by Dr.Scorpiowoman , Jun 20, 2016 .

Dr.Scorpiowoman Golden Member

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); Psychological experiments can be key to understanding what makes people tick, yet some individuals have gone about their research in rather unusual – and sometimes morally dubious – ways. Furthermore, while these researchers’ findings may increase the sum of knowledge on human behavior, the methods that a number of psychologists have used in order to test theories have at times overstepped ethical boundaries or might even appear somewhat sadistic. Those taking part in such studies have not always escaped unscathed, either; in fact, as a result some have suffered lasting emotional damage – or worse. Here are ten bizarre psychology experiments that totally crossed the line. 10. Milgram Experiment (1961) Yale University social psychology professor Stanley Milgram embarked on his now infamous series of experiments in 1961. Prompted by the trial of high-ranking Nazi and Holocaust-coordinator Adolf Eichmann, Milgram wished to assess whether people really would carry out acts that clashed with their conscience if so directed by an authority figure. For each test, Milgram lined up three people, who were split into the roles of “experimenter” (or authority figure), “teacher” and “learner” (actually an actor). After that, the teacher – who was separated from the learner and told to comply with the experimenter – would attempt to tutor the learner in sets of word pairs. The penalty for wrong answers by the learner was shocking in more ways than one, as they pretended to receive painful and increasingly strong jolts of electricity that the teacher thought they were delivering. Even though no real shocks were inflicted, the ethics of the experiment came under close scrutiny owing to the severe psychological stress placed on its volunteer subjects. 9. Little Albert Experiment (1920) Things were different in 1920. Back then, you could take a healthy baby and scare it silly in the name of science – which is exactly what American psychologist John B. Watson did at Johns Hopkins University. Interested to learn if he would be able to condition a child to fear something ordinary – if coupled with something else that he supposed triggered inborn fear – Watson borrowed eight-month-old baby Albert for an experiment with seemingly dubious ethics. First, Watson introduced the child to a white rat. Observing that it didn’t scare Albert, Watson then reintroduced the rat, only this time together with a sudden loud noise. Naturally, the noise frightened Albert. Watson then deliberately got Albert to associate the rat with the noise, until the baby couldn’t even see the rat without bursting into tears. Essentially, the psychologist gave Albert a pretty unpleasant phobia. Moreover, Watson went on to make the infant distressed when seeing a rabbit, a dog and even the furry white beard of “Santa Claus.” By the end of the experiment, Albert might well have been traumatized for life! 8. Stanford Prison Experiment (1971) In August 1971 Stanford University psychology professor Philip Zimbardo decided to test the theory that conflict and ill-treatment involving prisoners and guards is chiefly down to individuals’ personality traits. Zimbardo and his team set up a simulated prison in the Stanford psychology building and gave 24 volunteers the roles of either “prisoner” or “guard.” The participants were then dressed according to their assigned roles, with Zimbardo handing himself the part of “superintendent.” While Zimbardo had steered the guards towards creating “a sense of powerlessness” among the mock prisoners, what happened was pretty disturbing. Around four of the dozen guards became actively sadistic. Prisoners were stripped and humiliated, left in unsanitary conditions and forced to sleep on concrete floors. One was shut in a cupboard. Zimbardo himself was so immersed in his role that he didn’t notice the severity of what was going on. After six days, his girlfriend’s protests persuaded him to halt the experiment – but not before at least five of the prisoners had suffered emotional trauma. 7. Monkey Drug Trials (1969) While their findings may have shed light on the psychological aspect of drug addiction, three researchers at the University of Michigan Medical School arguably completely overstepped the mark in 1969 by getting macaque monkeys hooked on illegal substances. G.A. Deneau, T. Yanagita and M.H. Seevers injected the unwitting primates with drugs, including cocaine, amphetamines, morphine and alcohol. Why? In order to see if the animals would then go on to freely administer doses of the psychoactive and, in some cases, potentially deadly substances themselves. Many of the monkeys did, which the researchers claimed established a link between drug abuse and psychological dependence. Still, given the fact that the conclusions cannot necessarily be applied to humans, the experiment may have had questionable scientific value. Moreover, even if a link was determined, the method was quite possibly unethical and undoubtedly cruel – especially since some of the monkeys became a danger to themselves and died. 6. Bobo Doll Experiment (1961, 1963) In the early 1960s Stanford University psychologist Albert Bandura attempted to demonstrate that behavior – in this case violent behavior – can be learned through observation of reward and punishment. To do this, he acquired 72 nursery-age children together with a large, inflatable toy known as a Bobo doll. He then made a subset of the children watch an adult violently beating and verbally abusing the toy for around ten minutes. Alarmingly, Bandura found that out of the two-dozen children who witnessed this display, in many cases the behavior was imitated. Left alone in the room with the Bobo doll once the adult had gone, the children became verbally and physically aggressive towards the doll, attacking it with an intensity arguably frightening to see in ones so young. In 1963 Bandura carried out another Bobo doll experiment that yielded similar results. Nevertheless, the work has since come under fire on ethical grounds, seeing as its subjects were basically trained to act aggressively – with possible longer-term consequences. 5. Homosexual Aversion Therapy (1967) Aversion therapy to “cure” homosexuality was once a prominent subject of research at various universities. A study detailing attempts at “treating” a group of 43 homosexual men was published in the British Medical Journal in 1967. The study recounted researchers M.J. MacCulloch and M.P. Feldman’s experiments in aversion therapy at Manchester, U.K.’s Crumpsall Hospital. The researchers’ volunteers were shown slides of men that they were told to keep looking at for as long as they considered it appealing. After eight seconds of such a slide being shown, however, the test subjects were given an electric shock. Slides showing women were also presented, and the volunteers were able to look at them without any punishment involved. Although the researchers suggested that the trials had some success in “curing” their participants, in 1994 the American Psychological Association deemed homosexual aversion therapy dangerous and ineffective. 4. The Third Wave (1967) “How was the Holocaust allowed to happen?” It’s one of history’s burning questions. And when Ron Jones, a teacher at Palo Alto’s Cubberley High School, was struggling to answer it for his sophomore students in 1967, he resolved to show them instead. On the first day of his experiment, Jones created an authoritarian atmosphere in his class, positioning himself as a sort of supreme leader. But as the week progressed, Jones’ one-man brand of fascism turned into a school-wide club. Students came up with their own insignia and adopted a Nazi-style salute. They were taught to firmly obey Jones’ commands and become anti-democratic to the core, even “informing” on one another. Jones’ new ideology – dubbed “The Third Wave” – spread like wildfire. By the fourth day, the teacher was concerned that the Nazi-like movement he’d unleashed was getting out of hand, and he brought the experiment to a halt. On the fifth day, he told the students that they had invoked a similar feeling of supremacy to that of the German people under the Nazi regime. Thankfully, there were no repercussions. 3. UCLA Schizophrenia Medication Experiment (1983–1994) From 1983 psychologist Keith H. Nuechterlein and psychiatrist Michael Gitlin from the UCLA Medical Center commenced a now controversial study into the mental processes of schizophrenia. Specifically, they were looking into the ways in which sufferers of the mental disorder relapse and were trying to find out if there are any predictors of psychosis. To achieve this, they had schizophrenics, from a group of hundreds involved in the program, taken off their medication. Such medication is not without its nasty side effects, and the research may hold important findings about the condition. Nevertheless, the experiment has been criticized for not sufficiently protecting the patients in the event of schizophrenic symptoms returning; nor did it clearly determine the point at which the patients should be treated again. What is more, this had tragic consequences in 1991 when former program participant Antonio Lamadrid killed himself by jumping from nine floors up – despite having been open about his suicidal state of mind and supposedly under the study’s watch. 2. The Monster Study (1939) Appropriately branded the “Monster Study” by its contemporaries, psychologist Dr. Wendell Johnson’s speech therapy experiment was at first kept a secret in case it damaged his professional reputation. The University of Iowa’s Johnson drafted in graduate student Mary Tudor to carry out the 1939 experiment for her master’s thesis, whilst Johnson himself supervised. Twenty-two orphaned children, ten of whom had issues with stuttering, were put into two groups, each containing a mix of those with and without speech disorders. One of the groups was given positive, encouraging feedback about their verbal communication, while the other was utterly disparaged for their – sometimes-non-existent – speech problems. The findings were recorded. This six-month study had a major impact even on those who had no prior talking difficulties, making some insecure and withdrawn. In 2007 half a dozen of the former subjects were given a large payout by the state of Iowa for what they had endured, with the claimants reporting “lifelong psychological and emotional scars.” 1. David Reimer (1967–1977) Canadian David Reimer’s life was changed drastically on account of one Johns Hopkins University professor. After a botched circumcision procedure left Reimer with disfiguring genital damage at six months old, his parents took him to be seen by John Money, a professor of medical psychology and pediatrics who advocated the theory of “gender neutrality” – arguing that gender identity is first and foremost learned socially from a young age. Money suggested that although Reiner’s penis could not be repaired, he could and should undergo sex reassignment surgery and be raised as a female. In 1967 Reimer began the treatment that would turn him into “Brenda.” However, despite further visits to Money over the next ten years, Reimer was never really able to identify himself as female and lived as a male from the age of 14. He would go on to have treatment to undo the sex reassignment, but the ongoing experiment had prompted extreme depression in him – an underlying factor that contributed to his 2004 suicide. John Money, meanwhile, was mired in controversy. Source  

Attached Files:

aa427634209eb411edd1cb31e1099228.jpg

472034d5b05463537f0d02682274727a.jpg

31a7e782236c6a672563d2936a878a63.jpg

72f74a54118c3c841310d0f62b50a3ce.jpg

Share this page.

• Login with Facebook
• Log in with Twitter
• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

• Search titles only

Separate names with a comma.

• Search this thread only
• Display results as threads

Useful Searches

• Recent Posts

Cognitive Psychology Experiments: Unveiling the Mysteries of the Mind

From illusions that deceive our senses to the limits of our memory, cognitive psychology experiments have long sought to unravel the enigmatic workings of the human mind. Our brains, these marvelous biological computers, continue to baffle and amaze us with their complexity and capabilities. Yet, through the tireless efforts of researchers and the ingenious design of experiments, we’ve managed to peek behind the curtain of consciousness and glimpse the inner workings of our cognitive processes.

Cognitive psychology, the study of mental processes such as attention, language use, memory, perception, problem-solving, creativity, and thinking, has been at the forefront of this exploration. It’s a field that bridges the gap between our subjective experiences and the objective world of scientific inquiry. By designing clever experiments, cognitive psychologists have managed to shine a light on the hidden mechanisms that drive our thoughts, decisions, and behaviors.

The journey of cognitive psychology began in the mid-20th century, emerging as a response to the limitations of behaviorism. While behaviorists focused solely on observable behaviors, cognitive psychologists argued that to truly understand the human mind, we needed to examine the internal mental processes that give rise to those behaviors. This shift in perspective opened up a whole new world of research possibilities, leading to a boom in experimental studies that continue to shape our understanding of the mind to this day.

The significance of these experiments cannot be overstated. They’ve not only advanced our theoretical understanding of cognition but have also had profound practical implications. From improving educational methods to developing more effective therapies for mental health disorders, the insights gained from cognitive psychology experiments have touched nearly every aspect of our lives.

Foundational Cognitive Psychology Experiments: The Building Blocks of Understanding

Let’s kick things off with a colorful conundrum that’s been puzzling psychologists for decades: the Stroop Effect. Imagine you’re presented with a list of color words, but here’s the catch – the words are printed in different colors than what they spell. For instance, the word “RED” might be printed in blue ink. Your task? Simply name the color of the ink, not read the word. Sounds easy, right? Well, prepare to have your mind blown!

Most people find this task surprisingly difficult, often stumbling and slowing down when the word and ink color don’t match. This phenomenon, first described by John Ridley Stroop in 1935, reveals the powerful interference between our automatic reading processes and our ability to name colors. It’s a prime example of how our cognitive processes can sometimes trip us up, even in seemingly simple tasks.

But wait, there’s more! Let’s take a stroll down memory lane with George Miller’s “Magic Number” experiment. In 1956, Miller proposed that our short-term memory capacity is limited to about seven items, plus or minus two. He arrived at this conclusion after presenting participants with lists of random items (like digits, letters, or words) and asking them to recall as many as possible.

Surprisingly, most people could remember about seven items, regardless of whether they were simple digits or complex concepts. This “magic number” has had far-reaching implications, influencing everything from the design of phone numbers to the way we organize information in user interfaces. It’s a testament to how a single, well-designed experiment can reshape our understanding of human cognition and impact our daily lives.

Now, let’s dive into the murky waters of memory reconstruction with Elizabeth Loftus and John Palmer’s groundbreaking work on eyewitness testimony. In their famous 1974 experiment, participants watched videos of car accidents and were then asked questions about what they saw. Here’s where it gets interesting: the researchers found that simply changing the wording of the questions could alter the participants’ memories of the event.

For instance, when asked “How fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other?”, participants estimated higher speeds than when the word “smashed” was replaced with “hit” or “contacted”. Even more astonishingly, a week later, participants who had been asked about the cars “smashing” were more likely to falsely remember seeing broken glass in the video – even though there was none!

This experiment sent shockwaves through the legal system, challenging the reliability of eyewitness testimony and highlighting the malleability of human memory. It’s a stark reminder that our memories aren’t perfect recordings of past events, but rather reconstructions that can be influenced by subsequent information and the way questions are phrased.

Attention and Perception Studies: The Invisible Gorilla and Other Mind-Bending Phenomena

Now, let’s turn our attention to… well, attention itself! One of the most jaw-dropping demonstrations of selective attention comes from Daniel Simons and Christopher Chabris’ “Gorilla in our midst” experiment. Picture this: you’re watching a video of people passing a basketball, and your task is to count the number of passes made by one team. Sounds simple enough, right? But here’s the kicker – in the middle of the video, a person in a gorilla suit walks right through the scene, beats their chest, and exits.

You’d think everyone would notice a gorilla, wouldn’t you? Surprisingly, about half of the participants in this experiment were so focused on counting passes that they completely missed the gorilla! This phenomenon, known as inattentional blindness, shows just how selective our attention can be. It’s a humbling reminder that we often see what we’re looking for and miss what we’re not expecting, even when it’s right in front of our eyes.

Speaking of missing things right in front of our eyes, let’s talk about change blindness. This phenomenon occurs when we fail to notice changes in our visual environment, even when they’re quite significant. In one famous demonstration, researchers showed participants alternating images of two people having a conversation. The images were identical except for one major change – in one image, the first person wore a hat, and in the other, they didn’t.

Astonishingly, many participants failed to notice this change, even after multiple viewings. This experiment highlights the limitations of our visual awareness and challenges our intuitive belief that we see and remember everything in our environment. It’s a sobering thought that we might be missing more of the world around us than we realize!

Lastly, let’s explore the world of visual search with Anne Treisman’s Feature Integration Theory experiments. Treisman proposed that our visual perception occurs in two stages: a pre-attentive stage where we process basic features like color and shape in parallel, and a focused attention stage where we combine these features into coherent objects.

To test this theory, Treisman conducted experiments where participants had to find a target item among distractors. She found that when the target differed from distractors in a single feature (like a red circle among blue circles), people could find it quickly regardless of the number of distractors. However, when the target was defined by a combination of features (like a red circle among blue circles and red squares), search times increased with the number of distractors.

These findings have had profound implications for our understanding of visual perception and attention. They’ve influenced everything from the design of user interfaces to strategies for improving visual search in real-world scenarios like airport security screenings.

Memory and Learning Experiments: Forgetting Curves and Spaced Repetition

Let’s take a journey back to the late 19th century, where Hermann Ebbinghaus was busy memorizing nonsense syllables. Why, you ask? Well, Ebbinghaus was on a mission to understand how our memory works, particularly how we forget information over time. His painstaking self-experiments led to the discovery of the “forgetting curve” – a graph showing how information is lost over time when there’s no attempt to actively recall it.

Ebbinghaus found that memory loss is rapid at first, but then levels off. For instance, he might forget 50% of the nonsense syllables within an hour, but then only forget another 10% over the next month. This insight has had profound implications for learning and education. It’s why cramming the night before an exam isn’t as effective as spaced repetition – reviewing material at gradually increasing intervals.

Speaking of context, let’s dive into the fascinating world of the Encoding Specificity Principle, brought to us by Endel Tulving and Donald Thomson. Their experiments showed that the context in which we learn information plays a crucial role in our ability to recall it later. In one study, participants learned lists of words either on dry land or underwater. Surprisingly, they were better at recalling the words in the same environment where they learned them.

This principle extends beyond physical environments to emotional states and even physiological conditions. Ever had trouble remembering something you knew you knew, only to have it pop into your head later in a different context? That’s the Encoding Specificity Principle at work! It’s a reminder that memory isn’t just about storing information, but about creating rich, contextual associations that aid in retrieval.

Now, let’s talk about a learning phenomenon that’s music to the ears of procrastinators everywhere – the Spacing Effect. This effect, first discovered by Hermann Ebbinghaus (yes, him again!) and later elaborated by many others, shows that we learn more effectively when we space out our study sessions over time, rather than cramming everything into one marathon session.

In a typical experiment demonstrating this effect, participants might be asked to learn a list of words. One group studies the list in a single session, while another group studies it in multiple shorter sessions spread out over time. When tested later, the spaced-learning group almost always outperforms the cramming group, even when the total study time is the same.

This finding has revolutionary implications for education and learning. It suggests that shorter, more frequent study sessions are more effective than longer, less frequent ones. So, the next time you’re tempted to pull an all-nighter before a big exam, remember – your brain might thank you for spreading out your study sessions instead!

Decision-Making and Problem-Solving Studies: Logic, Framing, and Functional Fixedness

Let’s kick off this section with a brain-teaser that’s stumped countless participants – the Wason Selection Task. Imagine you’re shown four cards. You know that each card has a letter on one side and a number on the other. The visible faces of the cards show A, D, 4, and 7. Now, you’re told there’s a rule: “If a card has a vowel on one side, then it has an even number on the other side.” Your task? Select only the cards you need to turn over to check if the rule is being followed.

Sounds simple, right? Well, prepare to have your mind boggled! Most people choose A and 4, but the correct answer is A and 7. This task, developed by Peter Wason in 1966, reveals our struggles with abstract logical reasoning. It’s a stark reminder that our brains aren’t naturally wired for formal logic, and that we often rely on intuitive shortcuts that can lead us astray.

Now, let’s shift gears to a phenomenon that’s shaped our understanding of decision-making – the Framing Effect. This cognitive bias, explored in depth by Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman, shows how the way information is presented (or “framed”) can dramatically influence our choices.

In one classic experiment, participants were presented with a hypothetical scenario where 600 people were at risk from a disease outbreak. They were then given two treatment options:

– Option A: “200 people will be saved” – Option B: “There’s a 1/3 probability that 600 people will be saved, and a 2/3 probability that no one will be saved”

Interestingly, most people chose Option A. But when the same scenario was presented with different framing:

– Option C: “400 people will die” – Option D: “There’s a 1/3 probability that nobody will die, and a 2/3 probability that 600 people will die”

Suddenly, most people preferred Option D, even though it’s mathematically equivalent to Option B!

This experiment reveals how our decisions can be swayed by the way information is presented, even when the underlying facts remain the same. It’s a sobering reminder of how susceptible we are to manipulation through framing, with implications ranging from marketing strategies to public health communications.

Lastly, let’s shine a light on a cognitive quirk that can hinder our problem-solving abilities – functional fixedness. This phenomenon was beautifully illustrated by Karl Duncker’s Candle Problem. In this experiment, participants were given a candle, a box of thumbtacks, and a book of matches. Their task? Attach the candle to the wall so that it can burn properly without dripping wax on the table below.

Many participants struggled with this task, trying to tack the candle directly to the wall or melt some of the wax to stick it. The solution, however, was to empty the box of thumbtacks, tack the box to the wall, and use it as a platform for the candle. The difficulty arose because people were fixated on the box’s function as a container for thumbtacks, failing to see its potential as a candleholder.

This experiment reveals how our preconceived notions about an object’s function can limit our problem-solving abilities. It’s a reminder to think outside the box – sometimes quite literally! – when faced with challenging problems.

Modern Cognitive Psychology Experiments: Peering into the Brain and Beyond

As we venture into the 21st century, cognitive psychology has embraced new technologies and methodologies, opening up exciting new avenues for research. One of the most revolutionary developments has been the advent of neuroimaging studies, which allow us to peek inside the brain as it performs various cognitive tasks.

Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) studies, for instance, have allowed researchers to observe which areas of the brain “light up” during different cognitive processes. In one fascinating experiment, participants were asked to imagine walking through their homes while their brains were being scanned. The researchers found that different areas of the brain activated in sequence, corresponding to the mental “walk” through different rooms. This kind of study provides unprecedented insights into how our brains represent and navigate spatial information.

But it’s not just about pretty brain pictures. These neuroimaging studies have practical applications too. For example, they’ve been used to study the neural basis of cognitive biases, helping us understand why we’re prone to certain systematic errors in thinking. One study used fMRI to examine the brain activity of participants as they made financial decisions. The researchers found that when people experienced the “sunk cost fallacy” – continuing to invest in a failing project because of past investments – there was increased activity in areas of the brain associated with negative emotions and conflict resolution.

Speaking of cognitive biases, modern cognitive psychology has continued to uncover and explore these fascinating quirks of human thinking. One particularly intriguing area of research has been the study of the “Dunning-Kruger effect” – the tendency for people with low ability in a specific domain to overestimate their competence.

In a series of experiments, Justin Kruger and David Dunning asked participants to rate their abilities in various domains (like logical reasoning or grammar) and then tested their actual performance. They found that those who performed poorly on the tests consistently overestimated their abilities, while high performers tended to underestimate theirs. This effect has profound implications for everything from education to workplace dynamics, highlighting the importance of self-awareness and continuous learning.

Lastly, let’s talk about a hot topic in modern cognitive psychology – multitasking. In our hyper-connected world, many of us pride ourselves on our ability to juggle multiple tasks simultaneously. But what does the research say about the effects of multitasking on our attention and performance?

One eye-opening study by Eyal Ophir, Clifford Nass, and Anthony Wagner compared the cognitive abilities of heavy media multitaskers (people who frequently use multiple media simultaneously) with those of light media multitaskers. Contrary to what many might expect, they found that heavy multitaskers performed worse on tasks that required switching between different types of information. They were more easily distracted by irrelevant information and had more difficulty organizing their memories.

This research challenges the common belief that multitasking makes us more efficient. Instead, it suggests that constantly dividing our attention might be impairing our ability to focus and process information effectively. It’s a sobering thought in an age where we’re constantly bombarded with information from multiple sources.

As we wrap up our whirlwind tour of cognitive psychology experiments, it’s clear that this field has come a long way since its inception. From the foundational studies that shaped our understanding of attention, memory, and perception, to the cutting-edge research using neuroimaging and exploring cognitive biases, each experiment has added a piece to the puzzle of the human mind.

These studies have not only advanced our theoretical understanding but have also had profound practical implications. They’ve influenced educational practices, shaped legal procedures, informed design principles, and even changed how we think about our own thinking. The insights gained from cognitive psychology experiments have truly permeated every aspect of our lives.

As we look to the future, the field of cognitive psychology continues to evolve. Emerging technologies like virtual reality and artificial intelligence are opening up new possibilities for experimental design and data analysis. At the same time, there’s a growing recognition of the need for more diverse and representative participant pools to ensure that our understanding of cognition isn’t limited to a narrow subset of humanity.

One thing is certain – the human mind remains as fascinating and mysterious as ever. As we continue to probe its depths through clever experiments and rigorous analysis, we’re sure to uncover even more surprises. Who knows? The next groundbreaking cognitive psychology experiment might be just around the corner, ready to revolutionize our understanding of the mind once again.

So, the next time you find yourself marveling at the quirks of your own thinking – whether you’re struggling to ignore the word “RED” written in blue ink, or wondering how you missed that gorilla in the basketball game – remember that you’re experiencing firsthand the phenomena that cognitive psychologists have been studying for decades. Our minds may be enigmatic, but with each experiment, we get a little closer to unraveling their mysteries.

References:

1. Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18(6), 643-662.

2. Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63(2), 81-97.

3. Loftus, E. F., & Palmer, J. C. (1974). Reconstruction of automobile destruction: An example of the interaction between language and memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13(5), 585-589.

4. Simons, D. J., & Chabris, C. F. (1999). Gorillas in our midst: Sustained inattentional blindness for dynamic events. Perception, 28(9), 1059-1074.

5. Treisman, A. M., & Gelade, G. (1980). A feature-integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12(1), 97-136.

6. Ebbinghaus, H. (1885/1913). Memory: A contribution to experimental psychology. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.

7. Tulving, E., & Thomson, D. M. (1973). Encoding specificity and retrieval processes in episodic memory. Psychological Review, 80(5), 352-373.

8. Wason, P. C. (1966). Reasoning. In B. M. Foss (Ed.), New horizons in psychology. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

9. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453-458.

10. Duncker, K. (1945). On problem-solving. Psychological Monographs, 58(5), i-113.

11. Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1121-1134.

12. Ophir, E., Nass, C., & Wagner, A. D. (2009). Cognitive control in media multitaskers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(37), 15583-15587.

Similar Posts

Occlusion Psychology: Exploring Visual Perception and Cognitive Processing

From the tantalizing glimpses of hidden objects to the mind’s relentless quest to fill in the gaps, occlusion psychology delves into the fascinating interplay between visual perception and cognitive processing. It’s a field that explores how our brains make sense of a world where objects are often partially or completely hidden from view. Imagine walking…

Implicit Attitudes in Psychology: Defining and Understanding Unconscious Biases

Hidden within our minds, a silent force shapes our perceptions and behaviors – the enigmatic realm of implicit attitudes. These unconscious mental processes wield a powerful influence over our daily lives, often without us even realizing it. Imagine walking down a busy street, your brain constantly processing information about the people around you. In a…

Experimental Group Psychology: Unraveling Human Behavior Through Controlled Studies

From the conformity of Asch’s line experiments to the obedience of Milgram’s shock trials, experimental group psychology has long sought to unravel the mysteries of human behavior within controlled settings. This fascinating field of study has captivated researchers and laypeople alike, offering insights into the complex dynamics that shape our interactions, decisions, and societal structures….

Dichotic Listening in Psychology: Unraveling Auditory Processing

A hidden world of auditory processing awaits exploration through the lens of dichotic listening, a powerful tool in the psychologist’s arsenal that illuminates the brain’s fascinating ability to navigate competing sounds. This captivating technique has revolutionized our understanding of how the human mind processes auditory information, offering insights into the intricate workings of our cognitive…

Levels of Explanation in Psychology: Unraveling the Complexity of Human Behavior

Deciphering the perplexing puzzle of human behavior requires a multi-faceted approach, delving into the intricate interplay of biological, psychological, social, and environmental factors that shape our thoughts, emotions, and actions. It’s a bit like trying to solve a Rubik’s Cube blindfolded while riding a unicycle – challenging, but oh so rewarding when the pieces finally…

Latent Inhibition in Psychology: Exploring Its Impact on Cognitive Processing

Picture a mental filter that shapes your perception, silently sifting through the endless barrage of stimuli, and you’ll begin to grasp the elusive concept of latent inhibition in psychology. It’s like having a bouncer at the door of your mind, deciding which information gets VIP access to your conscious awareness and which gets left out…

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

10 Groundbreaking Psychological Experiments That Revealed Surprising Truths About Human Nature

As an education reform expert with over 15 years specializing in learning environments and student development, I‘m fascinated by insights from psychology that can inform best practices. Landmark experiments have unlocked surprising truths about human nature that educators would be wise to understand.

While some methodologies may raise ethical questions today, these studies revealed profound principles about behavior that still carry relevance. Let‘s explore 10 of the most influential psychological experiments and what they teach us:

1. Superiority Complex (A Class Divided Experiment)

In 1968, the day after Martin Luther King Jr.‘s assassination, teacher Jane Elliott tried discussing racism and discrimination with her young students. But she found lectures made little impact.

So Elliott famously split her Iowa 3rd grade class by eye color. She told the blue-eyed children they were smarter and gave them extra privileges not afforded to the "inferior" brown-eyed kids.

The results were startling – almost overnight the blue-eyed kids‘ academic performance improved while brown-eyed students suffered, even though nothing but their "label" had changed. When roles reversed the next day, so did outcomes.

This revealed how quickly and easily superiority complexes take hold once people adopt labels of high-status vs. low-status groups. Even arbitrary distinctions dramatically impacted self-perception within 24 hours.

Implications today on structuring positive, equitable learning environments? Teachers must be vigilant about differential treatment that could demotivate students as "inferior." Facility in principles like growth mindset is essential.

2. Conforming for Acceptance (Asch Experiments)

We expect peers to reinforce truth, not undermine it. But seminal 1950s studies by Solomon Asch exposed startling conformity effects.

In a vision test, participants viewed lines of obviously different lengths. But surrounded by actors who intentionally chose the wrong line, 75% of subjects agreed with the group at least once, despite knowing the truth. Across trials, conformity ranged from 32-75%.

This demonstrated people may ignore clear facts to gain group acceptance. Through desire for social cohesion, shared realities get constructed. Schools see this through cheating scandals when many go along. It shows the power conformity holds.

What mitigates? autonomous values, dissent tolerance, teaching independent thinking as a key skill. If rewards came from checking work not just right answers, cheating would likely fall as truth-telling became prestigious.

3. Responsibility Diffusion (Kitty Genovese Case)

Imagine witnessing an assault through your window yet saying nothing? In 1964 Kitty Genovese‘s shocking 30-minute murder was overheard by 38 neighbors – who all refrained from calling police.

While initial reports proved inaccurate (police were indeed called), the tragic case triggered research into the bystander effect – how responsibility diffuses the more witnesses there are. Each person unconsciously assumes another will take action.

School bullies exploit this through open harassment. But teachers can designate empowered defenders, create safe reporting channels assure follow-through. Responsibility must have structure when crowds passive.

4. Situational Identity (Stanford Prison Experiment)

When does authority shed ethical constraints? Stanford‘s 1971 pseudo-prison experiment revealed darker truths. Undergraduate Ronald Zimbardo randomly assigned classmates as prisoners or guards. Though forbidden from physical abuse, guards soon turned authoritarian: stripping/chaining prisoners, demanding push ups, solitary confinement for defiance.

Within 36 hours five prisoners had broken down emotionally while other guards enforced sadistic orders. The roleplay rapidly became reality. Zimbardo aborted everything after 6 days yet participants struggled resuming normalcy. Over 50% prisoners showed clinical post-traumatic symptoms.

This demonstrated situational identity shifts – how easily people assume unconscious roles when given positions of power versus subservience. School bullies likewise use false authority as rationale for abuse. Systems permitting domination without accountability spawn predictable abuse.

Teaching students about the Stanford experiment provides a compact case study revealing why checks and balances matter at every level of power.

5. Raising the Standard Through Attention (Hawthorne Works Experiment)

Sometimes just observing behavior changes it.

When researching workplace lighting effects on productivity at 1920s Hawthorne Works, researcher Henry Landsberger discovered that output increased whenever changes occurred, even dimming light from optimum to minimal levels. Just paying attention seemed to spur effort.

This "Hawthorne effect" revealed how productivity rises when standards feel visible, through awareness of being studied. Teachers see this on test days – students try harder when evaluations occur.

To leverage? Make progress transparency, praise gains, use random positive checkins. If output matters when visible, maintaining that observer mentality keeps students aiming higher.

6. Prioritizing Long Term Skill Building (The Marshmallow Test)

Delayed gratification proves a challenge for children as all educators know! But can this skill be honed to benefit learning?

Walter Mischel‘s 1960s "Marshmallow Test" explored this. Children age 4-6 were left with one marshmallow but told they would earn a second by resisting fifteen minutes. Just 30% succeeded. In follow ups those children showed dramatically higher SAT scores years later – over 200 points higher on average!

This revealed strong links between deferred gratification and goal achievement. Those resisting temporary urges for greater gain accessed a crucial skill.

School interventions build this by scaffolding bigger goals into manageable steps. Smaller incremental wins grant periodic "marshmallows" until culminating in larger rewards. Matching work pace to each student prevents frustration from attempting too much self-regulation before skills solidify.

7. The Danger of Generalizations (Little Albert Experiment)

Irrational fears plague millions, but what causes phobias? Psychologists Watson & Raynor explored conditioning triggers in 1920s Little Albert experiments. By producing loud scary sounds when 11 month-old Albert touched harmless objects, they taught him to fear them through association. First a white rat, then any fuzzy things triggered fear.

This revealed how infants generalize one negative experience across harmless things sharing surface traits. Schools contend with this when students fear math after struggling just with fractions. Such phobias form readily yet resist logic.

Care in not over-attributing a single failure mode across wider skill areas prevents gross generalization. Analyzing precise weaknesses then scaffolding graduated success can target gaps without identity labels.

8. Social Learning Caught on Film (Bobo Doll Experiment)

Monkey see, monkey do? Psychologist Bandura explored behavior roots through 1960s Bobo doll films. Children saw an adult interacting aggressively or benignly with a doll, then were observed responding to the same doll.

Those exposed to violence were far more hostile. Boys copied same-gender aggression models more, but all learned from example. This evidenced behavior inheritance through imprinting and imitation – rarely biologically ingrained.

School fights spread cognitively by imprinting violence as acceptable outlet. Media holds massive sway. To counter, emotionally mature responses must flood the environment such that restraint becomes the contagion.

9. From Competition to Cooperation (Robbers Cave Experiment)

How easily can in-group bias spark conflict? Psychologists Muzafer & Carolyn Sherif plucked two dozen 12-year-olds to attend 1954‘s ‘Robbers Cave‘ summer camp, carefully pre-vetting that the boys did not already know each other.

Split into two groups, the Rattlers and Eagles bonded through first week‘s team building exercises. In phase two – a competitive tournament spanning tug-of-war to cabin cleanliness contests. This quickly bred hostility visible in food hall division and name calling.

Integrated activities were then used to build super-ordinate goals requiring cooperation. Once aware of shared challenges, former threats became collaborators. Reducing competition, avoiding generalization prevents hostility cycles. Schools facilitate through pairing students up across social boundaries.

10. The Invisible Elephant in the Room

Could you miss something as conspicuous as an elephant if focusing elsewhere? That was explored in Simons and Chabris‘ 1999 "Invisible Gorilla Test". People were asked to track basketball passes by those in black or white shirts. During this quick action, a woman in a gorilla costume lumbered mid-screen.

Incredibly, 50% attending to passes missed the gorilla entirely due to narrowed selective attention. We can fail to observe unexpected things in plain sight. Classrooms juggle many stimuli, hence importance of directing attention amid chaos.

Stopping periodically to widen perspective asking "What key things around me have I missed noticing?" can reveal gaps hidden in open view. Often the invisible hides obvious in plain sight.

Key Takeaways

While specifics vary, patterns emerge across experiments – people readily shift behavior based on roles and perceived labels; blind spots hide unquestioned assumptions; irrational conditioning happens quickly while requiring patience to undo; groupthink distorts honesty; frustrations spark hostility without outlet; attention selects focus while filtering periphery data.

School reforms recognizing these core psychological tendencies can structurally account for them through institutional checks and balances. Is authority tied to accountability and oversight? Do academics teach perspective-taking, impulse control and conflict resolution alongside rote facts? Are cooperating skills developed and valued?

Understanding what most influences human behavior provides levers for shaping constructive environments. And remaining aware of pitfalls allows consciously designing systems that lead participants toward their higher angels rather than lower impulses.

While a 2000 word piece barely scratches the surface, I hope I‘ve highlighted why the most influential psychological experiments still resonate. There exist timeless insights into human nature with direct relevance for those designing modern institutions like public education when knowingly rather than unwittingly tapping into these powerful social dynamics.

A dedicated father and former high school English teacher, Chris's journey into education advocacy is both personal and profound. His passion for equitable education sparked not in the classroom, but at home, as he navigated the challenges and triumphs of raising his children within the public education system.

After receiving his Master's in Education, Chris embarked on a teaching career, enriching young minds with literature and critical thinking skills. However, it was his transition to full-time parenthood that brought a new dimension to his understanding of education. He witnessed firsthand the effects of underfunding and standardized test pressures on schools and students alike.

Motivated by these experiences, Chris took his advocacy to the digital world. His blog, born from a blend of professional insight and parental concern, delves into the nuances of educational policy, resource allocation, and the need for a balanced approach to student assessment. Chris's unique perspective as both educator and parent offers a compelling call to action for quality, accessible public education.

Chris, residing with his family in [City, State], continues to be a beacon for educational reform, inspiring others through his writings and community involvement.

Similar Posts

Your all-encompassing guide to emt programs in cape coral.

Have you felt an calling to become an EMT, drawn to the adrenaline and rewards of…

Why Schools Should Not Make Classroom Attendance Compulsory

As a veteran education reform expert with over 20 years in the field, I have extensively…

Bridging the Reading Gap: Specialized Schools Transforming Literacy Outcomes

Reading is one of the most pivotal skills we ever learn in life. It unlocks doors…

A Detailed Guide to Maximizing New York City School Tax Credits

As a parent living in New York City, you know firsthand the high costs of raising…

masters programs in hartford ct

Discover Why Hartford is New England‘s Hidden Gem for Affordable, High-Impact Masters Degrees Boasting a thriving…

How Long Is A School Day In China? A Deep Dive into Intensive Education Norms

In China‘s hyper-competitive education environment, extraordinarily long school days crammed with academic lessons are the expectation….

Inside 7 Of The Most Horrific Psychological Experiments Ever Performed

From the little albert experiment that terrorized a helpless infant to the monster study that tried to turn non-stuttering children into stutterers, these are some of the most disturbing psychology experiments ever performed on humans..

Psychology is a relatively new scientific field. While inquiries into the workings of the human mind technically trace back to the ancient Greeks, psychology did not officially become a field of academic and scientific study until the 1800s, with many citing Wilhelm Wundt’s 1873 book, Principles of Physiological Psychology and his subsequent founding of the first psychology lab in 1879 as the modern origin of the field.

Wundt primarily focused on the study of human consciousness, and he applied several experimental methods to move his research forward. The German professor’s work was very much “of the time” and can be viewed as unscientific by today’s standards, but his influence on the field is undeniable.

Over a century after Wundt opened his psychology lab, the field of psychology has grown exponentially, and researchers have gained a far deeper understanding of the human mind and human behavior. However, there have been some serious missteps along the way.

The American Psychological Association (APA) didn’t establish its first Code of Ethics until 1953. Before that, human psychology experiments had far more potential risk. The original guidelines have, of course, been adapted and added to over the past 70 years as well — and for good reason.

Below, you’ll find seven examples of disturbing and highly unethical psychology experiments conducted on human subjects.

Disturbing Psychology Experiments: The Little Albert Experiment (1920)

YouTube Psychologist John Watson wearing a Santa Claus mask and scaring “Little Albert.”

Ivan Pavlov’s experiments into classical conditioning are perhaps the most famous psychology experiments of all time. The Russian psychologist found that he could condition dogs to drool when they heard a dinner bell ring — even if there was no dinner in front of them — by creating an association in their minds between the bell being rung and dinner being served.

About 20 years later, in 1920, Johns Hopkins University researchers John Watson and Rosalie Rayner sought to prove that classical conditioning could work on humans just as effectively as it had on Pavlov’s dogs.

Their tests are now known as the Little Albert Experiment .

Throughout the course of the study, Watson and Rayner presented a nine-month-old baby, whom they called “Little Albert,” with several fluffy animals like a rabbit and a white rat. At first, the infant showed no negative reaction to any of the animals and even tried to pet them.

But then, when he was presented with one of the animals again, the researchers would strike a hammer against a steel pipe. The sudden and loud noise scared the baby, and he would start to cry.

Eventually, Albert came to fear anything that resembled the fluffy animals, including his family’s dogs and a bearded Santa Claus mask. His mother, who realized how traumatized he was, pulled him from the study before Watson and Rayner could attempt to reverse the conditioning.

The study is controversial for several reasons. First, creating a fear response is a form of psychological harm that is prohibited in modern experiments — and it was heavily critiqued at the time, as well. Second, the study only had one subject, which effectively rendered it pointless as studies of this nature need a much larger sample size in order for conclusions to be drawn.

Worst of all, however, is that Albert’s ultimate fate remains unknown to this day, and since his conditioning was never reversed, he quite possibly spent the rest of his life afraid of harmless objects and animals.

PO Box 24091 Brooklyn, NY 11202-4091

26 of the Most Interesting Psychological Experiments Part-I

Why exactly people act or react the way they do. Psychologists all over the world are still in the process to fully understand this phenomena. However, it is also true that the existing knowledge about the human behavior is a result of a century long study and experiments.

These experiments certainly contributed to psychological society in a grand way. From Festinger’s Cognitive Dissonance Experiment to Asch’s Conformity Experiment, together we will unravel some most influential psychological experiments that will help us understand the reasons behind our actions.

Below is a list of the 13 most influential psychological experiments that every human being should know. It is the first article of two articles covering 26 most influential Psychological Experiments. The second one will be published shortly.

Table of Contents

13. Violinist at the Metro

In 2007, the Washington post conducted an interesting study to learn how closely people observe their surroundings and act accordingly. The staff organized a violin play at the DC Metro station to successfully conduct this test.

During the test, commuters scuttled down without actually realizing the fact that the musician playing at the metro entrance was Grammy-winning performer,  Joshua Bell , who, a couple of days before this experiment at the station, sold out at a house-full theater in Boston.

Even though, he probably played one of the most complicated pieces ever written with a 3.5 million dollar violin, only 6 people stopped and listened. Around 20 of them gave him money, but continued to walk at normal pace. At the end of the day, he collected only $32 against $100 per ticket at the Boston event.

12. Piano Stairs

Do you take the stairs, or escalator when you visit a mall or a subway? Well, on an average people tend to take escalators more often than stairs, right. Based on this, Volkswagen initiated an experiment called “The Fun Theory” to prove that people’s behavior can be changed, in this case for the better by making dull activities more of a fun.

The setup was organized at a subway in Stockholm, Sweden. Where, normal stairs were changed with musical piano steps of the subway station to see if more people would be willing take the stairs instead of the escalator. The following day, nearly 66 percent of total commuters took the stairs than usual, proving that fun is a good way to get people to change their habits.

11. Visual Cliff Experiment

Are you scared of heights? What do you think this fear came from, is it something that we are born with or do we gain it gradually as we grew up? To find out the answer, psychologists Eleanor Gibson and Richard Walk performed a study to learn the depth perception in infants, which became popular as the visual cliff experiment.

For the study, they included a total of 36 infants between the ages of six month and 1 year. The test setup was comprised of a visual cliff which was created using a large glass table, raised about a foot off the floor. To create the perfect cliff environment, they marked half of the table with checkered pattern representing the ‘shallow side.’

Likewise, in order to create ‘deep side,’ a checkered pattern was created on one side from top to down as a visual cliff. Even though the glass table extends further away, the placement of the pattern on the floor creates the illusion of a drop-off. Infants were than placed one by one on that table.

At the end of the experiment, Gibson and Richard found that only 27 infants crossed into the shallow side after their mothers called them. Out of those 27 infants, only three crawled off to the visual cliff toward their mother when called from the other side. All the remaining infants who didn’t cross either went back to the shallow side or cried.

10. Selective Attention Test

The famous selective attention test was carried out by D. Simons and C. Chabris to understand the general consciousness of the human brain. The test was comprised of two teams, one dressed in white and another in black. Subjects were asked to observe a video in which both teams exchanged a ball within their teammates. Based on the observations, participants had to count the total number of passes occurred between the players of the white team.

While all this was going on, a man in a gorilla setup quietly stepped onto the stage and stood in the center for a few minutes before just going offstage. Simons and Chabris found out that almost all of the test subjects failed to recognize the gorilla. The finding proved, that when people are asked to concentrate on one particular task, their strong focus on that ‘thing’ can force them to miss other significant details.

Recommended:  35+ Weird and Interesting Facts About Human Brain

9. The Marshmallow Test

Well, who knew that psychological tests can be tasty too?. In 1972, Walter Mischel of Stanford University started the Marshmallow Experiment to study whether deferred gratification can be a leading factor in future success. To perform this test, children ages four to six were taken into an empty room with just one table. On top of that table, a single marshmallow was placed.

To conduct the test, children were told that they would receive a second marshmallow if the first one was still on the table after 15 minutes before experimenters left the room. They observed closely on how long each child resisted having the marshmallow. They found out that among those 600 children, only few ate the marshmallow immediately and nearly one-third delayed the pleasure for long enough to receive the second marshmallow.

After, several related studies, Mischel found that those who deferred gratification were significantly more capable and qualified, they also received higher and better SAT scores than their peers, proving that this trait is more likely to remain with a person for life. Moreover, even though the study seems simplistic, the findings mark some of the foundational differences in an individual that can predict success.

8. Milgram Experiment

Authority and orders constitute a very important part of our life. From early in our lives, we are trained to obey orders from higher authorities even though it goes against their morals and common sense. To put a stamp on this theory, psychologist Stanley Milgram designed a test to measure people’s  desire to obey the authority , when they were specifically instructed to perform several acts that may conflict with their morals.

Subjects were informed that they were actually taking part in a test, where they have to observe another person taking a memory test and act as an administrator. They were strictly advised to give them an electric shock (which was fake) every time they got a wrong answer to a question.

Much to the experimenter’s motive, every time the person (actor) gave an incorrect answer, the participants tend to increase the severity of shocks, even though the individual taking the test appeared to be in tremendous pain. Despite these complaints, almost all participants carried on pulling the switch and increasing the severity of shocks after each wrong answer. This experiment manifested, that human brains are more likely to obey higher authority even if it’s against their sanity.

7. Surrogate Mother / Harlow’s Monkey’s

When a child is born, mother’s affection is the first thing that he/she feels. According to doctors, this affection is vital for a child’s growth. Well, you can thank Mr. Harlow for the love you get as a child. In a  controversial experiment  during the early 1960s, psychologist Harry Harlow studied the significance of a mother’s affection for healthy mental and overall development of a child.

To execute the experiment, he separated newborn monkeys from their biological mothers just hours after their birth and put them in an observational quarter with two “surrogate mothers.” The first one was actually made of wrapped wire with an attached bottle (for food), the other one was made of soft cloth which lacked food.

Interestingly, the babies spent a significant amount of time with mother having just cloth rather than the wire mother with food. This experiment proved that not food but affection and love plays a much greater role in overall development of a child.

6. The Good Samaritan Experiment

Do you help strangers in need? Or how many people do you think will help the strangers? And if they do, what are the reasons? To find the answer to this question, Daniel Batson and John Darley devised an experiment called “The Good Samaritan Experiment” to explore the potential causes of the  unselfish behavior . To start out with, researchers tested three hypothesis;

A. Religion is not a major factor determining who will help and who will not. B. People in hurry are not likely to show generous behavior. C. People who turned religious just for personal gains would be less helpful than people aiming for spiritual gains in their life.

The setup was quite interesting, beforehand subjects were given religious teaching before asking them to gather in an another building. On their way to the other building, there was a person lying injured who appeared to be in grievous pain and in dire need of help. Now, to test the second assumption, some subjects were advised not to hurry while others were told the exact opposite.

Researchers find out that when in no hurry, nearly 2/3 of subjects stopped and offer to help. On the other hand, the ratio dropped when the subjects were in a rush. Furthermore, subjects who were about to convey a speech about helping others are more likely to help against those delivering other speeches, demonstrating that thoughts are an important factor in determining helping behavior in other persons.

5. The Halo Effect Experiment

The Halo Effect  is one the oldest and well known phenomena which confirms that most people generally presume that their opposites, male or female, who are attractive (physically) are mostly intelligent, kind and friendly, and a person with better judgment. To prove their theory, Richard E. Nisbett and Timothy DeCamp Wilson devised a test that will show how Halo Effect can influence an individual’s personal judgment.

They conducted the test on two groups of college students. The first group was asked to assess a teacher according to a videotaped interview. In that taped interview, the instructor introduced himself as an intelligent, enthusiastic and respectful of his students. In the second video, which was given to the second group, he made himself a completely different person, that is, unlikable and distrustful with a rigid teaching style.

The students were called upon to rate the instructor based on his appearance and mannerisms. The important part here is that his gesture and accent were kept the same in both the videos. The results were actually baffling to the respondents. Upon asking, they had no idea why they gave the first lecturer such higher ratings. They also added that, they liked the lecturer from what he said and their evaluation of individual was not affected by his characteristics at all.

4. The Monster Study

American psychologist and a strong proponent of General Semantics, Wendell Johnson came into the spotlight after exerting unethical methods in his  experiment . He started his famous study on the effects of speech therapy based on children in 1939. To start with, he selected 20 odd children, which he divided into two groups. The first group comprised of children suffering from stutters and the second one without.

The subjects with stutters were given positive speech therapy, and received praise for their speaking fluency with continuous motivation. On the other hand, children on the second group were heavily discouraged and disparaged for every grammatical mistake they made. The outcome of the experiment was gruesome, not only the children who experienced negative speech suffered a long term psychological effects, they also suffered difficulties in speech for the rest of their lives.

3. Ross’ False Consensus Effect Study

The false-consensus effect is a cognitive bias by which people tend to overestimate the extent to which their beliefs, opinions, preferences and values are normal and typical of those of others. Simply put, it’s a false feeling where people judge that others think the same way they do. Even though, the concept of False Consensus is not new and can be traced back in the mid-1900s, from the works of Leon Festinger and Sigmund Freud, it was only in 1977, when the first full detailed study was done on the subject.

The experiment focuses on how people can erroneously conclude that others think the same way they do, to form a “ false consensus ” about preferences the beliefs of others. During the initial stage of the study, each participant was provided with a situation in which a conflict occurred and were only provided with two options to respond to the situation. They were asked three things:

A. Guess which of the two option other people would choose, B. Say which option they themselves would choose C. Describe the attributes of the person who would likely choose each of the two options

The study showed that most of the subjects maintain the view that other people would do the same as them, regardless of the responses they personally choose. This phenomenon is referred to as the false consensus effect. The second observation showed that when participants were asked to describe the attributes of the other people who will likely make the choice, opposite of their own, they made bold, negative predictions about the personalities of those who did not share their choice.

2. The Schacter and Singer Experiment on Emotion

A group of nearly 180 male participants divided into two groups, were injected with epinephrine, a neurotransmitter or hormone that induces arousal including increased trembling, heartbeat including rapid breathing. The research participants were told that they were being injected with a new medication to test their eyesight. The first group of participants was informed about the possible side effects of the injection, while the second group were not.

The participants were then sent into a room one by one, along with someone they thought was a fellow participant. But he was actually a part of the experiment, a confederate. Now every time one participant walks into the door, the confederate starts acting either euphoric or angry. As an effect, participants who had not been informed earlier about the effects of the injection were found more likely to feel either happier or angrier than those who had been informed.

The main motive behind this experiment was to understand the ways in which cognition or thoughts influence human emotion. Their study illustrates the importance of how people interpret their physiological states, which form an important component of your emotions. Furthermore, even though it is correct that this theory of emotional arousal dominated the field for more than two decades, it has been criticized in recent years due to its non-universality.

Read:  21 Interesting Facts About Protein You May Not Know

1. Stanford Prison Study

Perhaps one of the most famous and controversial experiments in psychology, the Stanford Prison Experiment was performed by professor Philip Zimbardo to study the assumption of roles in a forced situation. The experiment was specially designed to study the behavior of a “normal” individuals assigned to a role of either a prisoner or a guard.

Participants, who are college students were assigned roles of “guard” or “inmate”. To make it cogent, a great bit importance was given to the local environment of the psychology building where it was carried, to closely resemble with an actual prison. The students turned prison guards were told to run a prison for two weeks. They were also told not to physically harm any of the inmates during the entire experiment.

Unfortunately, the experimenters were forced to cut short the experiment after a few days, due to a hostile environment in the prison. The prison guards tend to become verbally abusive towards the inmates and many of the prisoners became submissive to the authority. The experiment was based on unethical principles, but still many psychologists believe that the results showed how a person will comply to certain roles provided in the appropriate conditions.

I am a content writer and researcher with over seven years of experience covering all gaming and anime topics. I also have a keen interest in the retail sector and often write about the business models/strategies of popular brands.

I started content writing after completing my graduation. After writing tech-related things and other long-form content for 2-3 years, I found my calling with games and anime. Now, I get to find new games and write features and previews.

When not writing for RankRed, I usually prefer reading investing books or immersing myself in Europa Universalis 4. But I am currently interested in some new JRPGs as well.

Related articles

12 Largest Earthquakes In the 21st Century

11 Strange theories & hypothesis that will Challenge your Mind

Leave a reply cancel reply.

• Virginia Beach
• History & facts
• Famous people
• Famous landmarks
• AI interviews
• Science & Nature
• Tech & Business

Discover something new everyday

• Famous places
• Food & Drinks
• Tech & Business

20 Famous Psychology Experiments That Shaped Our Understanding

Read Next →

Where to Swim in Lisbon

How to find English speaking movies in Paris

Top 15 Interesting Facts about The Renaissance

1.stanford prison experiment.

2.Milgram Experiment

3.little albert experiment.

4.Asch Conformity Experiment

5.harlow’s monkey experiment.

6.Bobo Doll Experiment

7.the marshmallow test.

8.Robbers Cave Experiment

9.the monster study.

10.The Standford Marshmallow Experiment

11.the hawthorne effect.

12.The Strange Situation

13.the still face experiment.

14.Pavlov’s Dogs

15.the milgram experiment.

16.The Robbers Cave Experiment

17.the harlow monkey experiment, 18.the bystander effect, 19.the zimbardo prison experiment.

20.The Ainsworth Strange Situation Experiment

Planning a trip to Paris ? Get ready !

These are  Amazon’s best-selling  travel products that you may need for coming to Paris.

• The best travel book : Rick Steves – Paris 2023 –  Learn more here
• Fodor’s Paris 2024 –  Learn more here

Travel Gear

• Venture Pal Lightweight Backpack –  Learn more here
• Samsonite Winfield 2 28″ Luggage –  Learn more here
• Swig Savvy’s Stainless Steel Insulated Water Bottle –  Learn more here

Check Amazon’s best-seller list for the most popular travel accessories. We sometimes read this list just to find out what new travel products people are buying.

Beatrice is a vibrant content creator and recent law graduate residing in Nairobi, Kenya. Beyond the legal world, Beatrice has a true love for writing. Originally from the scenic county of Baringo, her journey weaves a rich tapestry of culture and experiences. Whether immersing herself in the bustling streets of Nairobi or reminiscing about her Baringo roots, her words paint vivid tales. She enjoys writing about law and literature, crafting a narrative that bridges her legal acumen, cultural heritage, and the sheer joy of putting pen to paper.

Hello & Welcome

Popular Articles

Top 20 Streets to See in Paris

Paris in two days

Top 15 Things to do Around the Eiffel Tower

The Best Way to Visit Paris Museums

Top 15 Fashion Stores in Le Marais

Visit europe with discover walks.

• Paris walking tours
• Montmartre walking tour
• Lisbon walking tours
• Prague walking tours
• Barcelona walking tours
• Private tours in Europe
• Privacy policy

© 2024 Charing Cross Corporation

• 20 Most Unethical Experiments in Psychology

Humanity often pays a high price for progress and understanding — at least, that seems to be the case in many famous psychological experiments. Human experimentation is a very interesting topic in the world of human psychology. While some famous experiments in psychology have left test subjects temporarily distressed, others have left their participants with life-long psychological issues . In either case, it’s easy to ask the question: “What’s ethical when it comes to science?” Then there are the experiments that involve children, animals, and test subjects who are unaware they’re being experimented on. How far is too far, if the result means a better understanding of the human mind and behavior ? We think we’ve found 20 answers to that question with our list of the most unethical experiments in psychology .

Emma Eckstein

Electroshock Therapy on Children

Operation Midnight Climax

The Monster Study

Project MKUltra

The Aversion Project

Unnecessary Sexual Reassignment

Stanford Prison Experiment

Milgram Experiment

The Monkey Drug Trials

Featured Programs

Facial expressions experiment.

Little Albert

Bobo Doll Experiment

The Pit of Despair

The Bystander Effect

Learned Helplessness Experiment

Racism Among Elementary School Students

UCLA Schizophrenia Experiments

The Good Samaritan Experiment

Robbers Cave Experiment

Related Resources:

• What Careers are in Experimental Psychology?
• What is Experimental Psychology?
• The 25 Most Influential Psychological Experiments in History
• 5 Best Online Ph.D. Marriage and Family Counseling Programs
• Top 5 Online Doctorate in Educational Psychology
• 5 Best Online Ph.D. in Industrial and Organizational Psychology Programs
• Top 10 Online Master’s in Forensic Psychology
• 10 Most Affordable Counseling Psychology Online Programs
• 10 Most Affordable Online Industrial Organizational Psychology Programs
• 10 Most Affordable Online Developmental Psychology Online Programs
• 15 Most Affordable Online Sport Psychology Programs
• 10 Most Affordable School Psychology Online Degree Programs
• Top 50 Online Psychology Master’s Degree Programs
• Top 25 Online Master’s in Educational Psychology
• Top 25 Online Master’s in Industrial/Organizational Psychology
• Top 10 Most Affordable Online Master’s in Clinical Psychology Degree Programs
• Top 6 Most Affordable Online PhD/PsyD Programs in Clinical Psychology
• 50 Great Small Colleges for a Bachelor’s in Psychology
• 50 Most Innovative University Psychology Departments
• The 30 Most Influential Cognitive Psychologists Alive Today
• Top 30 Affordable Online Psychology Degree Programs
• 30 Most Influential Neuroscientists
• Top 40 Websites for Psychology Students and Professionals
• Top 30 Psychology Blogs
• 25 Celebrities With Animal Phobias
• Your Phobias Illustrated (Infographic)
• 15 Inspiring TED Talks on Overcoming Challenges
• 10 Fascinating Facts About the Psychology of Color
• 15 Scariest Mental Disorders of All Time
• 15 Things to Know About Mental Disorders in Animals
• 13 Most Deranged Serial Killers of All Time

Site Information

• About Online Psychology Degree Guide

Every print subscription comes with full digital access

Science News

Lies, damned lies and psychology experiments.

Researchers may deceive themselves when they mislead study participants

Share this:

By Bruce Bower

October 22, 2010 at 2:09 pm

BASEL, Switzerland — As dusk settled over this charming city by the Rhine in early October, psychologist Ralph Hertwig sipped scotch in his office with a visiting journalist and bemoaned the toxic — and for some researchers, intoxicating — effects of telling lies to gather data and get published.

Hertwig’s theme: Inauthentic experimenters and the research subjects who follow their lead. His case in point: A study in the May Psychological Science reporting that people who wear discount, mock designer sunglasses feel phony as a result and become more likely to cheat and to judge others as unethical.

With apologies to Jerry Lee Lewis, there was a whole lotta fakin’ going on in this investigation. Half of female participants in one trial completed a bogus questionnaire and were told that their answers reflected a preference for counterfeit products. They were then instructed to take a pair of sunglasses from a box marked “Counterfeit Sunglasses” — which actually contained expensive designer shades — and wear them while walking outside the lab for five minutes and then while working on lab tasks that paid money for correct responses.

Volunteers recorded their responses on a work sheet, after having been promised anonymity by the experimenters. But numbers on work sheets were used to identify each responder so that her actual and self-reported performance could be compared.

And behold—relative to women who hadn’t been misled about favoring faux stuff, tricked participants claimed to have made more correct responses than they actually did. In another experiment, misled women frequently described others as unethical and devious.

Hertwig rubbed his eyes wearily. “It’s just as likely that the experimenters’ own behavior encouraged the dishonest behavior that they observed,” he said.

Participants in the counterfeit condition could have read the situation as one in which normal standards of behavior didn’t apply because the researchers approved of designer knock-offs, Hertwig explained. Each woman saw that the experimenter had somehow acquired fake designer gear and displayed it openly. What’s more, the experimenter claimed special insights into people’s likings for counterfeit products, told volunteers to wear the glasses in public and had them evaluate positive statements about the glasses.

Sociologists’ “broken-windows” theory posits that signs of disorder and petty criminal behavior cause such acts to spread in communities. If that’s the case, Hertwig noted, the counterfeit-sunglasses scientists metaphorically “broke their lab’s window and cried foul when participants sprayed graffiti on the wall.”

And assuming volunteers were debriefed after the experiment, as required by the American Psychological Association’s rules of conduct, one shouldn’t expect them to trust any future researchers’ pledges of anonymity.

Ironically, psychologists’ blindness to these issues could stem from a counterfeit-sunglasses effect. “Deceptive research practices may induce a sense of self-alienation and lack of authenticity among experimenters that interferes with analyzing the signals that the experimental situation conveys to participants,” Hertwig mused.

Some of the most famous psychology experiments of the past 60 years have hinged on trickery, despite longstanding ethical and practical concerns about fooling people in the name of science ( SN: 6/20/98, p. 394 ).

Deceptive psychology’s heyday occurred in the 1960s and 1970s. Literature searches conducted by Hertwig and economist Andreas Ortmann of the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, indicate that experimenters still mislead volunteers in between one-third and one-half of studies published in major social psychology journals.

Hertwig doesn’t want to ban deceptive research practices. He’d settle for researchers taking off their rose-colored, counterfeit sunglasses and scrutinizing how their devious methods may shape volunteers’ responses.

In other words, let the liar beware.

More Stories from Science News on Psychology

A next-gen pain drug shows promise, but chronic sufferers need more options

Online spaces may intensify teens’ uncertainty in social interactions

Language models may miss signs of depression in Black people’s Facebook posts

Timbre can affect what harmony is music to our ears

Not all cultures value happiness over other aspects of well-being

What parrots can teach us about human intelligence

Most people say self-control is the same as willpower. Researchers disagree

Here’s how to give a good gift, according to science

Subscribers, enter your e-mail address for full access to the Science News archives and digital editions.

Not a subscriber? Become one now .

• Random article
• Teaching guide
• Privacy & cookies

10 great psychology experiments

by Chris Woodford . Last updated: December 31, 2021.

S tare in the mirror and you'll find a strong sense of self staring back. Every one of us thinks we have a good idea who we are and what we're about—how we laugh and live and love, and all the complicated rest. But if you're a student of psychology —the fascinating science of human behaviour—you may well stare at your reflection with a wary eye. Because you'll know already that the ideas you have about yourself and other people can be very wide of the mark.

You might think you can learn a lot about human behaviour simply by observing yourself, but psychologists know that isn't really true. "Introspection" (thinking about yourself) has long been considered a suspect source of psychological research, even though one of the founding fathers of the science, William James, gained many important insights with its help. [1] Fortunately, there are thousands of rigorous experiments you can study that will do the job much more objectively and scientifically. And here's a quick selection of 10 of my favourites.

Listen instead... or scroll to keep reading

1: are you really paying attention (simons & chabris, 1999).

“ ...our findings suggest that unexpected events are often overlooked... ” Simons & Chabris, 1999

You can read a book or you can listen to the radio, but can you do both at once? Maybe you can listen to a soft-rock album you've heard hundreds of times before and simultaneously plod your way through an undemanding crime novel, but how about listening to a complex political debate while trying to revise for a politics exam? What about listening to a German radio station while reading a French novel? What about mixing things up a bit more. You can iron your clothes while listening to the radio, no problem. But how about trying to follow (and visualize) the radio commentary on a football game while driving a highway you've never been along before? That's much more challenging because both things call on your brain's ability to process spatial information and one tends to interfere with the other. (There are very good reasons why it's unwise to use a cellphone while you're driving—and in some countries it's illegal.)

Generally speaking, we can do—and pay attention—to only so many things at once. That's no big surprise. However human attention works (and there are many theories about that), it's obviously not unlimited. What is surprising is how we pay attention to some things, in some situations, but not others. Psychologists have long studied something they call the cocktail-party effect . If you're at a noisy party, you can selectively switch your attention to any of the voices around you, just like tuning in a radio, while ignoring all the rest. Even more striking, if you're listening to one person and someone else happens to say your name, your ears will prick up and your attention will instantly switch to the other person instead. So your brain must be aware of much more than you think, even if it's not giving everything its full attention, all the time. [2]

Photo: Would you spot a gorilla if it were in plain sight? Picture by Richard Ruggiero courtesy of US Fish and Wildlife Service National Digital Library .

Sometimes, when we're really paying attention, we aren't easily distracted, even by drastic changes we ought to notice. A particularly striking demonstration of this comes from the work of Daniel Simons and Christopher Chabris (1999), who built on earlier work by the esteemed cognitive psychologist Ulric Neisser and colleagues. [3] Simons and Chabris made a video of people in black or white shirts throwing a basketball back and forth and asked viewers to count the number of passes made by the white-shirted players. You can watch it here .

Half the viewers failed to notice something else that happens at the same time (the gorilla-suited person wandering across the set)—an extraordinary example of something psychologists call inattentional blindness (in plain English: failure to see something you really should have spotted). A related phenomenon called change blindness explains why we generally fail to notice things like glaring continuity errors in movies: we don't expect to see them—and so we don't. Whether experiments like "the invisible gorilla" allow us to conclude broader things about human nature is a moot point, but it's certainly fair to say (as Simons and Chabris argue) that they reveal "critically important limitations of our cognitive abilities." None of us are as smart as we like to think, but just because we fail and fall short that doesn't make us bad people; we'd do a lot better if we understood and recognized our shortcomings. [4]

2: Are you trying too hard? (Aronson, 1966)

No-one likes a smart-aleck, so the saying goes, but just how true is that? Even if you really hate someone who has everything—the good looks, the great house, the well-paid job—it tuns out that there are certain circumstances in which you'll like them a whole lot more: if they suddenly make a stupid mistake. This not-entirely-surprising bit of psychology mirrors everyday experience: we like our fellow humans slightly flawed, down-to-earth, and somewhat relatable. Known as the pratfall effect , it was famously demonstrated back in 1966 by social psychologist Elliot Aronson. [5]

“ ...a superior person may be viewed as superhuman and, therefore, distant; a blunder tends to humanize him and, consequently, increases his attractiveness. ” Aronson et al, 1966

Aronson made taped audio recordings of two very different people talking about themselves and answering 50 difficult questions, which were supposedly part of an interview for a college quiz team. One person was very superior, got almost all the questions right, and revealed (in passing) that they were generally excellent at what they did (an honors student, yearbook editor, and member of the college track team). The other person was much more mediocre, got many questions wrong, and revealed (in passing) that they were much more of a plodder (average grades in high school, proofreader of the yearbook, and failed to make the track team). In the experiment, "subjects" (that's what psychologists call the people who take part in their trials) had to listen to the recordings of the two people and rate them on various things, including their likeability. But there was a twist. In some of the taped interviews, an extra bit (the "pratfall") was added at the end where either the superior person or the mediocrity suddenly shouted "Oh my goodness I've spilled coffee all over my new suit", accompanied by the sounds of a clattering chair and general chaos (noises that were identically spliced onto both tapes).

Artwork: Mistakes make you more likeable—if you're considered competent to begin with.

What Aronson found was that the superior person was rated more attractive with the pratfall at the end of their interview; the inferior person, less so. In other words, a pratfall can really work in your favor, but only if you're considered halfway competent to begin with; if not, it works against you. Knowingly or otherwise, smart celebrities and politicians often appear to take advantage of this to improve their popularity.

3: Is the past a foreign country? (Loftus and Palmer, 1974)

Attention isn't the only thing that lets us down; memory is hugely infallible too—and it's one of the strangest and most complex things psychologists study. Can you remember where you were when the Twin Towers fell in 2001 or (if you're much older and willing to go back further) when JFK was shot in Dallas in 1963? You might remember a girl you were in kindergarten with 20 years ago, but perhaps you can't remember the guy you met last week, last night, or even 10 minutes ago. What about the so-called tip-of-the-tongue phenomenon where you're certain you know a word or fact or name, and you can even describe what it's like ("It's a really short word, maybe beginning with 'F'..."), but you can't bring it instantly to mind? [6] How about the madeleine effect, where the taste or smell or something suddenly sets off an incredibly powerful involuntary memory ? What about déjà-vu : a jarring true-false memory—the strong sense something is very familiar when it can't possibly be? [7] How about the curious split between short- and long-term memories or between "procedural memory" (knowing how to do things or follow instructions) and "declarative memory" (knowing facts), which breaks down further into "semantic memory" (general knowledge about things) and "episodic memory" (specific things that have happened to you). What about the many flavors of selective memory failure, such as seniors who can remember the name of a high-school sweetheart but can't recall their own name? Or sudden episodes of amnesia? Human memory is a massive—and massively complex—subject. And any comprehensive theory of it needs to be able to explain a lot.

“ ...the questions asked subsequent to an event can cause a reconstruction in one's memory of that event.. ” Loftus & Palmer, 1974

Much of the time, poor memory is just a nuisance and we all have tricks for working around it—from slapping Post-It notes on the mirror to setting reminders on our phones. But there's one situation where poor memories can be a matter of life or death: in criminal investigation and court testimony. Suppose you give evidence in a trial based on events you think you remember that happened years ago—and suppose your evidence helps to convict a "murderer" who's subsequently sentenced to death. But what if your memory was quite wrong and the person was innocent?

One of the most famous studies of just how flawed our memories can be was made by psychologists Elizabeth Loftus and John Palmer in 1974. [8] After showing their subjects footage of a car accident, they tested their memories some time later by asking "About how fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other?" or using "collided," "bumped," "contacted," or "hit" in place of smashed. Those asked the first—leading—question reported higher speeds. Later, the subjects were asked if they'd seen any broken glass and those asked the leading question ("smashed") were much more likely to say "yes" even though there was no broken glass in the film. So our memories are much more fluid, far less fixed, than we suppose.

Artwork: The words we use to probe our memories can affect the memories we think we have.

This classic experiment very powerfully illustrates the potential unreliability of eyewitness testimony in criminal investigations, but the work of Elizabeth Loftus on so-called "false memory syndrome" has had far-reaching impacts in provocative areas, such as people's alleged recollections of alien abduction , multiple personality disorder , and memories of childhood abuse . Ultimately, what it demonstrates is that memory is fallible and remembering is sometimes less of a mechanical activity (pulling a dusty book from long-neglected library shelf) than a creative and recreative one (rewriting the book partly or completely to compensate for the fact that the print has faded with time). [9]

4. Do you cave in to peer pressure? (Milgram, 1963)

Experiments like the three we've considered so far might cast an uncomfortable shadow, yet most of us are still convinced we're rational, reasonable people, most of the time. Asked to predict how we'd behave in any given situation, we'd be able to give a pretty good account of ourselves—or so you might think. Consider the question of whether you'd ever, under any circumstances, torture another human being and you'd probably be appalled at the prospect. "Of course not!" And yet, as Yale University's Stanley Milgram famously demonstrated in the 1960s and 1970s, you'd probably be mistaken. [10]

Artwork: The Milgram experiment: a shocking turn of events.

Milgram's experiments on obedience to authority have been widely discussed and offered as explanations for all kinds of things, from minor everyday cruelty to the appalling catalogue of repugnant human behavior witnessed during the Nazi Holocaust. Today, they're generally considered unethical because they're deceptive and could, potentially, damage the mental health of people taking part in them (a claim Milgram himself investigated and refuted). [26]

“ ...the conflict stems from the opposition of two deeply ingrained behavior dispositions: first, the disposition not to harm other people, and second, the tendency to obey those whom we perceive to be legitimate authorities. ” Milgram, 1963

Though Milgram's studies have not been repeated, related experiments have sought to shed more light on why people find themselves participating in quite disturbing forms of behavior. One explanation is that, like willing actors, we simply assume the roles we're given and play our parts well. In 1972, Stanford University's Philip Zimbardo set up an entire "pretend prison" and assigned his subjects roles as prisoners or guards. Quite quickly, the guards went beyond simple play acting and actually took on the roles of sadistic bullies, exposing the prisoners to all kinds of rough and degrading treatment, while the prisoners resigned themselves to their fate or took on the roles of rebels. [11] More recently, Zimbardo has argued that his work sheds light on atrocities such as the torture at the Abu Ghraib prison in 2004, when US army guards were found to have tortured and degraded Iraqi prisoners under their guard in truly shocking ways.

5. Are you a slave to pleasure? (Olds and Milner, 1954)

Why do we do the things we do? Why do we eat or drink, play football, watch TV... or do the legions of other things we feel compelled to do each day? How, when we take these sorts of behaviors to extremes, do we become addicted to things like drink and drugs, gambling or sex? Are they ordinary pleasures taken to extremes or something altogether different? Obsessions, compulsions, and addictive behaviors are complex and very difficult to treat, but what causes them... and how do we treat them?

Artwork: A rat will happily stimulate the "pleasure centre" in its brain.

“ It appears that motivation, like sensation, has local centers in the brain. ” James Olds, Scientific American, 1956.

The Olds and Milner ICSS (intracranial self-stimulation) experiment was widely interpreted as the discovery of a "pleasure center" in the brain, but we have to take that suggestion with quite a pinch of salt. It's fascinating, but also quite reductively depressing, to imagine that a lot of the things humans feel compelled to do each day—from work and eating to sport and sex—are motivated by nothing more than the need to scratch a deep neural itch: to repeatedly stimulate a "hungry" part of our brain. While it offers important insights into addictive behavior, the idea that all of our complex human pleasure-seeking stems from something so crudely behavioral—stimulus and reward—seems absurdly over-simple. It's fascinating to search for references to Olds and Milner's work and see it quoted in books with such titles as Your Money and Your Brain: How the New Science of Neuroeconomics Can Help Make You Rich . But it's quite a stretch from a rat pushing on a pedal to making arguments of that kind. [14]

6: Are you asleep at the wheel? (Libet, 1983)

Being a conscious, active human being is a bit like driving a car: looking out through your eyes is like staring through a windshield, seeing (perceiving) things and responding to them, as they see and respond to you. Consciousness, in other words, feels like a "top-down" thing; like the driver of a car, we're always in control, willing the world to bend to our way, making things happen according to ideas our brains we devise beforehand. But how true is that really? If you are a driver, you'll know that much of what you do depends on a kind of mental "auto-pilot" or cruise control. As a practiced driver, you barely have to think about what you're doing at all—it's completely automatic. We're only really aware of just how effort-full and attentive drivers need to be when we first start learning. We soon learn to do most of the things involved in driving without being consciously aware of them at all—and that's true of other things too, not just driving a car. Seen this way, driving seems impressive—but if you think again about the Simons and Chabris gorilla experiment, and consider its implications for sitting behind the wheel, you might want to take the bus in future.

Still, you might think, you're always, ultimately, in charge and in control: you're the driver , not the passenger, even if you are sometimes dozy at the wheel. And yet, a remarkable series of experiments by Benjamin Libet, in the 1980s, appeared to demonstrate something entirely different: far from consciously making things happen, sometimes we become conscious of what we've done after the fact. In Libet's experiments, he made people watch a clock and move their wrist when it reached a certain time. But their brain activity (which he was also monitoring) showed a peak a fraction of a second before their conscious decision to move, suggesting, at least in this case, that consciousness is the effect, not the cause. [15]

“ Many of our mental functions are carried out unconsciously , without conscious awareness. ” Benjamin Libet, Mind Time, 2004, p.2.

On the face of it, Libet's work seems to have extraordinary implications for the study of consciousness. It's almost like we're zombies sitting at the wheel of a self-driving car. Is the whole idea of conscious free will just an illusion, an accidental artefact of knee-jerk behavior that happens much more automatically? You can certainly try to argue it that way, as many people have. On the other hand, it's important to remember that this is a highly constrained laboratory experiment and you can't automatically extrapolate from that to more general human behavior. (Apart from anything else, the methodology of Libet's experiments has been questioned. [16] ) While you could try to argue that a complex decision (to buy a house or quit your job) is made unconsciously or subconsciously in whatever manner and we rationalize or become conscious of it after the fact, experiments like Libet's aren't offering evidence for that. Sometimes, it's too much of a stretch to argue from simple, highly contrived, very abstract laboratory experiments to bigger, bolder, and more general everyday behavior.

On the other hand, it's quite likely that some behavior that we believe to be consciously pre-determined is anything but, as William James (and, independently, Carl Lange) reasoned way back in the late 19th century. In a famous example James offered, we assume we run from a scary bear because we see the bear and feel afraid. But James believed the reasoning here is back to front: we see the bear, run, and only feel afraid because we find ourselves running from a bear! (How we arrive at emotions is a whole huge topic of its own. The James-Lange theory eventually spawned more developed theories by Walter Cannon and Philip Bard, who believed emotions and their causes happen simultaneously, and Stanley Shachter and Jerome Singer, who believe emotions stem both from our bodily reactions and how we think about them.) [17]

7: Why are you so attached? (Harlow et al, 1971)

“ Love is a wondrous state, deep, tender, and rewarding. Because of its intimate and personal nature it is regarded by some as an improper topic for experimental research. ” Harry Harlow, 1958.

Artwork: Animals crave proper comfort, not just the simple "reduction" of "drives" like hunger. Photo courtesy of NASA and Wikimedia Commons .

There's an obvious evolutionary reason why we get attached to other people: one way or another, it improves our chances of surviving, mating, and passing on our genes to future generations. Attachment begins at birth, but our attachment to our mothers isn't motivated purely by a simple need for nourishment (through breastfeeding or whatever it might be). One of the most famous psychological experiments of all time demonstrated this back in the early 1970s. The University of Wisconsin's Harry Harlow and his wife Margaret tested what happened when newborn baby monkeys were separated from their mothers and "raised," instead by crude, mechanical surrogates. In particular, Harlow looked at how the monkeys behaved toward two rival "mothers", one with a wooden head and a wire body that had a feeding bottle attached, and one made from soft, warm, comforting cloth. Perhaps surprisingly, the babies preferred the cloth mother. Even when they ventured over to the wire mother for food, they soon returned to the cloth mother for comfort and reassurance. [18]

The fascinating thing about this study is that it suggests the need for comfort is at least as important as the (more obviously fundamental) need for nourishment, so busting the cold, harsh claims of hard-wired behaviorists, who believed our attachment to our mothers was all about mechanistic "drive reduction," or knee-jerk stimulus and response. Ultimately, we love the loving—Harlow's "contact comfort"—and perhaps things like habits, routines, and traditions can all be interpreted in this light.

8: Are you as rational as you think? (Wason, 1966)

“ ... I have concentrated mainly on the mistakes, assumptions, and stereotyped behavior which occur when people have to reason about abstract material. But... we seldom do reason about abstract material. ” Peter Wason, 1966.

Like everyone else, you probably have your moments of wild, reckless abandon, but faced with the task of making a calm, rational judgment about something, how well do you think you'd do? It's not a question of what you know or how clever you are, but how well you can make a judgment or a decision. Suppose, for example, you had to hire the best applicant for a job based on a pile of résumés. Or what if you had to find a new apartment by the end of the month and you had a limited selection to pick among. What if you were on the jury of a trial and had to sit through weeks or evidence to reach a verdict? How well do you think you'd do? Probably, given all the information, you feel you'd make a fair job of it: you have faith in your judgment. And yet, decades of research into human decision-making suggests you'll massively overestimate your own ability. Overconfident and under-informed, you'll jump to hasty conclusions, swayed by glaring biases you don't even notice. In the words of Daniel Kahneman, probably the world's leading expert on human rationality, your brain opts to think "fast" (reaches a quick and dirty decision) when sometimes it'd be better off thinking "slow" (reaching a more considered verdict). [25]

A classic demonstration of how poorly we think was devised by British psychologist Peter Wason in 1966. The experimenter puts a set of four white cards in front of you, each of which has a letter on one side and a number on the other. Then they tell you that if a card has a vowel on one side, it has an even number on the other side. Finally, they ask you which cards you need to turn over to verify if that statement is true. Suppose the cards show A, D, 4, and 7. The obvious answer, offered by most people, is A and 4 or just A. But the correct answer is actually A and 7. Once you've turned over A, it serves no purpose to turn over D or 4: turning over D tells us nothing, because it's not a vowel, while turning over 4 doesn't provide extra proof or disprove the statement. By turning over 7, however, you can potentially disprove the theory if you reveal a vowel on the other side of it. Wason's four-card test demonstrates what's known as "confirmation bias"—our failure to seek out evidence that contradicts things we believe. [19]

Artwork: Peter Wason's four-card selection test. If a card has a vowel on one side, it has an even number on the other. Which cards do you need to turn over to confirm this?

As with the other experiments here, you could extrapolate and argue that Wason's abstract reasoning test is echoed by bigger and wider failings we see in ourselves. Perhaps it goes some way to explaining things like online "echo chambers" and "filter bubbles", where we tend to watch, read, and listen to things that reinforce things we already believe—intellectual cloth mothers, you might call them—rather than challenging those comfortable beliefs or putting them to the test. But, again, a simple laboratory test is exactly what it is: a simple, laboratory test. And other, broader personal or social conclusions don't automatically follow on from it. (Indeed, you might recognize the tendency to argue that way as a confirmation bias all of its own.)

9: How do you learn things? (Pavlov, 1890s)

Learning might seem a very conscious and deliberate thing, especially if you hate the subject you're studying or merely sitting in school. What could be worse than "rote" learning your times table, practising French vocabulary, or revising for an exam? We also learn a lot of things less consciously—sometimes without any conscious effort at all. Animals (other than humans) don't sit in classrooms all day but they learn plenty of things. Even one of the simplest (a sea-slug called Aplysia californica ) will learn to withdraw its syphon and gill if you give it an electric shock, as Eric Kandel and James Schwartz famously discovered. [20]

“ The animal must respond to changes in the environment in such a manner that its responsive activity is directed toward the preservation of its existence. ” Ivan Pavlov, 1926.

So how does learning come about? At its most basic, it involves making connections or "associations" between things, something that was probed by Russian psychologist Ivan Pavlov in perhaps the most famous psychology experiment of all time. Pavlov looked at how dogs behave when he gave them food. Normally, he found dogs would salivate (a response) when he brought them a plate of food (a stimulus). We call this an unconditioned response (meaning default, normal, or just untrained): it's what the dogs do naturally. Now, with the food a distant doggy memory, Pavlov rang a bell (a neutral stimulus) and found it produced no response at all (the dogs didn't salivate). In the next phase of the experiment, he brought the dogs plates of food and rang a bell at the same time and found, again, that they salivated. So again, we have an unconditioned response, but this time to a pair of stimuli. Finally, after a period of this training, he tested what happened when he just rang the bell and, to his surprise, found that they salivated once again. In the jargon of psychology, we say the dogs had become "conditioned" to respond to the bell alone: they associated the bell with food and so responded by salivating. We call this a conditioned (trained or learned) response: the dogs have learned that the sound of the bell is generally linked to the appearance of food. [21]

Pavlov's work on conditioning was hugely influential—indeed, it was a key inspiration for the theory of behaviorism . Advanced by such luminaries as B.F. Skinner and J.B. Watson, this was the idea that animal behavior is largely a matter of stimulus and response and mental states—thinking, feeling, emoting, and reasoning—is irrelevant. But, as with all the other experiments here, it's a stretch to argue that we're all quasi-automated zombies raised in a kind of collective cloud of mind-control conditioning. It's true that we learn some things by simple, behavioural association, and animals like Aplysia may learn everything they know that way, but it doesn't follow that all animals learn everything by making endless daisy-chains of stimulus and response. [22]

10: You're happier than you realize (Seligman, 1975)

Money makes the world go round—or so goes the lyric of a famous song. But if you're American Martin Seligman, you'd probably think "happiness" was a better candidate for what powers the planet, or should. When I was studying psychology at college back in the mid-1980s, Professor Seligman came along to give a guest lecture—and it proved to be one of the most thought-provoking talks I would ever attend.

“ The time has finally arrived for a science that seeks to understand positive emotion, build strength and virtue, and provide guideposts for... 'the good life'. ” Martin Seligman, Authentic Happiness, 2003.

Though now widely and popularly known for his work in a field he calls positive psychology , Seligman originally made his name researching mental illness and how people came to be depressed. Taking a leaf from Pavlov's book, his subjects were dogs. Rather than feeding them and ringing bells, he studied what happened when he gave dogs electric shocks and either offered them an opportunity to escape or restrained them in a harness so they couldn't. What he discovered was that dogs that couldn't avoid the shocks became demoralised and depressed—they "learned helpnessness"—and eventually didn't even try to avoid punishment, even when (once again) they were allowed to. [23]

You can easily construct a whole (behavioural) theory of mental illness on the basis of Seligman's learned helplessness experiments but, once again, there's much more to it than that. People don't become depressed purely because they're in impossible situations where problems seem (to use the terminology) "internal" (their own fault), "global" (affecting all aspects of their life), and "stable" (impossible to change). Many different factors—neurochemical, behavioral, cognitive, and social—feed into depression and, as a result, there are just as many forms of treatment.

What's really interesting about Seligman's work is what he did next. In the 1990s, he realized psychologists were obsessed with mental illness and negativity when, in his view, they should probably spend more time figuring out what makes people happy. So began his more recent quest to understand "positive psychology" and the things we can all do to make our lives feel more fulfilled. The key, in his view, is working out and playing to what he calls our "signature strengths" (things we're good at that we enjoy doing). His ideas, which trace back to those early experiments on learned helpless in hapless dogs, have proved hugely influential, prompting many psychologists to switch their attention to developing a useful, practical "science of happiness." [24]

If you liked this article...

Don't want to read our articles try listening instead, find out more, on this website.

• Introduction to psychology
• The science of chocolate
• Neural networks
• Science of happiness

Other websites

For older readers, for younger readers, references ↑    see for example the classic discussion of consciousness in chapter 9: the stream of thought in principles of psychology (volume 1) by william james, henry holt, 1890. ↑    donald broadbent carried out notable early work on "selective attention" as this is called. see, for example, the role of auditory localization in attention and memory span by d.e. broadbent, j exp psychol, 1954, volume 47 number 3, pp.191–6. ↑     [pdf] gorillas in our midst: sustained inattentional blindness for dynamic events by daniel j simons, christopher f chabris, perception, 1999, volume 28, pp.1059–1074. ↑     the invisible gorilla and other ways our intuition deceives us by christopher chabris and daniel j. simons. harpercollins, 2010. ↑     [pdf] the effect of a pratfall on increasing interpersonal attractiveness by elliot aronson, ben willerman, and joanne floyd, psychon. sci., 1966, volume 4 number 6,pp.227–228. ↑     the 'tip of the tongue' phenomenon by roger brown and david mcneill, journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior, volume 5, issue 4, august 1966, pp.325–337. ↑     the cognitive neuropsychology of déjà vu by chris moulin, psychology press, 2017. ↑     reconstruction of automobile destruction: an example of the interaction between language and memory by elizabeth loftus and john palmer, journal of verbal learning & verbal behavior, volume 13 issue 5, pp.585–589. ↑     "that doesn't mean it really happened": an interview with elizabeth loftus by carrie poppy, the sceptical inquirer, september 8, 2016. ↑     behavioral study of obedience by stanley milgram, journal of abnormal and social psychology, 1963, volume 67, pp.371–378. ↑     a study of prisoners and guards in a simulated prison by craig haney, curtis banks, and philip zimbardo, naval research review, 1973, volume 30, pp.4–17. ↑     dr. robert g. heath: a controversial figure in the history of deep brain stimulation by christen m. o'neal et al, neurosurg focus 43 (3):e12, 2017. serendipity and the cerebral localization of pleasure by alan a. baumeister, journal of the history of the neurosciences, basic and clinical perspectives, volume 15, 2006. issue 2. the 'gay cure' experiments that were written out of scientific history by robert colvile, mosaic science, 4 july 2016. ↑     positive reinforcement produced by electrical stimulation of septal area and other regions of rat brain by j. olds and p. millner, j comp physiol psychol, 1954 dec;47(6):419–27. ↑     the pleasure areas by h.j. campbell, methuen, 1973. ↑     mind time: the temporal factor in consciousness by benjamin libet, harvard university press, 2004. ↑     exposing some holes in libet's classic free will study by christian jarrett, bps research digest, 2008. ↑    for a decent overview, see the section "theories of emotion" in 58: emotion in psychology by openstaxcollege. ↑     the nature of love by harry f. harlow, american psychologist, 13, pp.673–685. for a more general account, see love at goon park: harry harlow and the science of affection by by deborah blum, basic books, 2002. ↑     reasoning by p.c. wason, in foss, brian (ed.). new horizons in psychology. penguin, 1966, p.145. ↑     eric kandel and aplysia californica: their role in the elucidation of mechanisms of memory and the study of psychotherapy by michael robertson and garry walter, acta neuropsychiatrica, volume 22, issue 4, august 2010, pp.195–196. ↑     conditioned reflexes; an investigation of the physiological activity of the cerebral cortex by i.p pavlov. dover, 1960. ↑     pavlov's dogs by tim tully, current biology, 2003, volume 13, issue 4, 18 february 2003, pp.r117–r119. ↑     learned helplessness: theory and evidence by steven maier and martin seligman, journal of experimental psychology: general, 1976, volume 105, number 1, pp3.–46. ↑     authentic happiness by martin seligman, nicholas brealey, 2003. ↑     thinking fast and slow by daniel kahneman, penguin, 2011. ↑     subject reaction: the neglected factor in the ethics of experimentation by stanley milgram, the hastings center report, vol. 7, no. 5 (oct., 1977), pp. 19–23. please do not copy our articles onto blogs and other websites articles from this website are registered at the us copyright office. copying or otherwise using registered works without permission, removing this or other copyright notices, and/or infringing related rights could make you liable to severe civil or criminal penalties. text copyright © chris woodford 2021. all rights reserved. full copyright notice and terms of use . follow us, rate this page, tell your friends, cite this page, more to explore on our website....

• Get the book
• Send feedback

Advertisement

Top 10 bizarre experiments

By Alex Boese

31 October 2007

I STARTED collecting examples of bizarre experiments years ago while in graduate school studying the history of science. I confess I had no profound intellectual motive; I simply found them fascinating. They filled me with disbelief, astonishment, disgust and – best of all – laughter.

With hindsight, perhaps there is a deeper message. These experiments are not the work of cranks. All were performed by honest, hard-working scientists who were not prepared to accept common-sense explanations of how the world works. Sometimes such single-mindedness leads to brilliant discoveries. At other times it can end up closer to madness. Unfortunately, there’s no way of knowing in advance where the journey will lead.

Here are 10 of the bizarrest experiments of all time – which, it must be said, mostly fall closer to madness than to genius.

1 Elephants on acid

What happens if you give an elephant LSD? Researchers solved this mystery on Friday 3 August 1962, when Warren Thomas, director of Lincoln Park Zoo in Oklahoma City, fired a cartridge-syringe containing 297 milligrams of LSD into the rump of Tusko the elephant. With Thomas were two colleagues from the University of Oklahoma School of Medicine, Louis Jolyon West and Chester M. Pierce.

The dose was about 3000 times what a human would typically take. Thomas, West and Pierce figured that if they were going to give an elephant LSD they’d better not give it too little. They later explained that the experiment was designed to find out if LSD would induce musth in an elephant – musth being a kind of temporary madness male elephants sometimes experience during which they become highly aggressive…

Sign up to our weekly newsletter

Receive a weekly dose of discovery in your inbox! We'll also keep you up to date with New Scientist events and special offers.

To continue reading, subscribe today with our introductory offers

No commitment, cancel anytime*

Offer ends 10 September 2024.

*Cancel anytime within 14 days of payment to receive a refund on unserved issues.

Inclusive of applicable taxes (VAT)

Existing subscribers

More from New Scientist

Explore the latest news, articles and features

Polaris Dawn mission is one giant leap for private space exploration

Antidote to deadly pesticides boosts bee survival

OpenAI’s warnings about risky AI are mostly just marketing

Subscriber-only

Cats have brain activity recorded with the help of crocheted hats

Popular articles.

Trending New Scientist articles

• Entertainment
• General Knowledge

10 Communication Networks Defying Global Censorship Efforts

10 Hollywood Stars Who Have Ditched Their Cell Phones

10 Outrageous Historical Homosexual Scandals

10 Ways Actors Were Tricked into Starring in Films

10 Cases That Challenge Our Understanding of Human Identity

The Ten Best American Written Plays

Top 10 Incredible Scientific Facts about Earth’s Biggest Moon

10 Interesting Cease and Desist Orders

10 Things the Nazis Actually Deserve Credit for Inventing

10 Superheroes Different Than Anything You’ve Seen Before

Who's behind listverse.

Jamie Frater

Head Editor

Jamie founded Listverse due to an insatiable desire to share fascinating, obscure, and bizarre facts. He has been a guest speaker on numerous national radio and television stations and is a five time published author.

Top 10 Disturbing Modern Experiments

Some scientists have always had a tendency to forget morality in the pursuit of knowledge. In doing this, they have forced animals and humans to suffer. So review boards were created to help bring ethical standards to science.

Institutional review boards are used to regulate research in the United States. Despite many countries having similar panels, unethical studies continue. In large part, this is due to the differing ethical guidelines in animal research and the pursuit of knowledge at any cost. Below are 10 modern-day experiments with disturbing implications.

10 Mind-Controlled Rats

Researchers at the State University of New York have found a way to control rats remotely. Scientists claim that the animals could be beneficial to us by doing dangerous and difficult jobs.

Rats make good candidates for this experiment because of their small size and range of physical capabilities. The technology is still in its early stages and can only detect signals up to 460 meters (1,500 ft) away. [1]

Still, the inexpensive cost of the rat and its equipment makes this scientific achievement downright frightful. Even more disturbing is the fact that a creature can be controlled by a computer.

The researchers controlled the rats by using computers to send electrical signals through the animals’ brains as a way of giving orders to the rats. They essentially became willing slaves to the whims of the scientists, who stimulated the pleasure centers of the rats’ brains.

If this experiment becomes a stepping-stone for controlling the minds of other animals—and quite possibly humans—then we all face the threat of having our autonomy taken away by tyrannical leaders and corrupt governments. This might not happen, but the possibility of it is still disturbing.

This technology could help to create the perfect obedient slaves or citizens. They would not even desire to escape or rebel and would be duped into doing whatever their masters desire—all to get a euphoric electric shock.

9 Artificial Wombs

Artificial wombs are common in the science fiction genre, and scientists are closer than ever to developing one in the real world. They have already created an artificial womb that helped premature lambs develop normally. It resembled a large, clear plastic bag with wires.

The goal of the research is to improve the survival rate and quality of life of premature babies , many of whom suffer from cerebral palsy and respiratory complications. The possible consequences, though, include a plethora of ethical quagmires.

If humans can be produced entirely without wombs, then they might replace natural births. [2] Many women might prefer birth outside their body for health and vanity reasons. The technology could also be used for sterile women and gay couples.

This technology does, however, pose the threat of leading to eugenics and population control if women were sterilized, leaving those with access to artificial wombs as the only ones able to procreate. The possibility of artificial wombs is frightening.

CRISPR-Cas9 is a relatively new gene-editing technology that is precise, inexpensive, and quick. Genetic modification is already controversial, but the possibility of gene-editing technology being used in humans raises several ethical dilemmas.

In 2015, scientists improved the accuracy of the Cas9 enzyme, making it even more viable as a tool for genetic engineering. [3] If we have the ability to modify our own DNA and create designer babies, we are opening the doors to a range of problems.

Genetics is highly complicated. Many characteristics are controlled by several genes, making it difficult to assess the impact of changing any one gene. A gene that may be harmful in one scenario can be beneficial in another. So removing potentially harmful genes may hurt us in the long run.

The idea of creating designer babies is hinged on the idea that some genes are superior to others and that we should try to create humans with superior genetics. If designer babies were successfully formed, then the gap between the rich and the poor could continue to widen.

7 Human Chimeras

Chimeras are organisms with cells from two individuals. Human chimeras do exist naturally, but they are still 100 percent human. Now scientists have created human-animal chimeras.

These researchers are hoping to manufacture human organs in animals by injecting stem cells into the embryos . Scientists hope this will save the lives of people who desperately need organ donations, but this might lead to the further blurring of the line between human and animal.

It also begs the question of what it means to be human. How many human cells make an organism truly human? Additionally, if the chimeras were to possess similar cognitive abilities as humans, would they be given the same rights or treated as subordinates?

The process may also harm the organism. [4] The real ethical dilemma with human chimeras is their legal standing and how we will tolerate the possibility of human qualities possessed by another species.

6 De-extinction

De-extinction is what it sounds like: the resurrection of extinct species. This may sound intriguing, but it could lead to a host of issues—as it did in Jurassic Park .

In 2003, the first extinct animal, the Pyrenean ibex, was born, only to die and cause the subspecies a second extinction. [5] Less than two decades later, scientists are hoping to bring back woolly mammoths.

First, the researchers must sequence mammoth DNA. They intend to use Asian elephants as surrogate mothers. If this were to work out, mammoths might be seen at zoos but probably not in the wild.

De-extinction raises the ethical problem of bringing an extinct species into a completely transformed world that they might not be able to tolerate or survive in. Furthermore, the possibility of bringing back a species that may never live again in the wild seems like a waste of resources. The money to fund these projects might be better used to help protect other species from extinction instead of playing God.

The idea of bringing back species may be exciting, but it also raises questions on what to do if Neanderthals were brought back. In the future, it may be possible to use CRISPR to produce Neanderthals by using us or chimps as surrogate mothers. This would probably cause a lot of suffering as many cloned individuals are prone to health problems and often die young.

Additionally, life likely would be hard as a modern-day Neanderthal. Teasing and bullying would likely occur due to their differing build and facial features, possibly greater physical strength, and perhaps differing intelligence levels. That is, if they are considered humans and not forced to be our slaves or subordinates in society.

5 Artificial Life

A lab announced in 2010 that it had created the first artificial life-form . The disturbing part of the experiment is that the researchers played God. Scientists hope to create synthetic life-forms to help solve pressing world problems such as energy security, pollution, and disease .

However, the potential negative consequences are drastic, especially since we would be creating something that never naturally existed. New life-forms may wreak havoc upon us or other creatures. [6] The danger of artificial life-forms is that we may create something that we do not understand that could potentially backfire on us.

4 Exoskeletons

For humans, exoskeletons are devices that are worn to improve strength and mobility—something most humans would desire. The Active Pelvis Orthosis (APO) was created by European scientists to prevent falls, a dangerous reality for the elderly.

However, these exoskeletons are fraught with ethical problems—from cost to retirement. At least at first, they would probably be available only to the wealthy due to cost. Exoskeletons could also be used to push the retirement age even higher and force our elders to work. [7]

These devices may also be used by perfectly healthy and fit individuals to enhance their physical abilities. This could lead to a myriad of problems: robotic enhancement in sports, upgrades of soldiers , and longer hours of labor. By vying to improve our strength, we might end up worse off.

3 Head Transplants

The idea of head transplants sounds far-fetched. After all, beheading is a form of execution. However, Sergio Canavero has claimed to successfully repair the cut spinal cords of mice. Although many people are skeptical, his group is hoping to test their technique on dogs next. [8]

There are many ethical issues surrounding this idea. First, like many donated organs, the brain might be rejected and the patient would have to take drugs to try to prevent this after an incredibly dangerous procedure. These immunosuppressant drugs have side effects including osteoporosis, weakened muscles, and high blood sugar.

Additionally, this leads to numerous questions about identity. Having completely new bodies could be traumatic for the patients and lead to increased aversion to organ donations for potential donors.

2 Enhanced Pathogens

Enhanced pathogens are so potentially deadly that the White House is reviewing the funding of studies that make pathogens more dangerous. Many studies were halted in 2014 due to a string of frightening accidents in labs.

Scientists study enhanced pathogens as a way to take defensive measures against the next pandemic. But these disease-causing agents could accidentally cause a pandemic if a super pathogen were to escape from a lab. [9]

The other disturbing possibility is bioterrorism —something the CDC is already preparing for. The ability to create even deadlier diseases opens the door to greater threats posed by pathogens.

1 Love Potions

The neuropeptide oxytocin is being studied to examine its ability to help with relationships. Some scientists are skeptical that we can truly create love potions. But if researchers were able to successfully use oxytocin or other substances as love potions, the ethical implications would be profound. [10]

These drugs would probably be used to support rather than form love, but the idea of trying to recreate something as complex as love can be seen as playing God . Additionally, forcing someone to fall in love with you, if that could happen, would be highly unethical. It would violate a person’s autonomy, and the love potion may be considered a date-rape drug.

Furthermore, we may just be putting a Band–Aid on our problems by becoming dependent on love drugs to cure heartbreak and fix relationships. It may be wiser—and certainly better—to deal with love the old-fashioned way.

Alexandra loves guinea pigs, reading, and food.

Read about more disturbing experiments that crossed ethical lines on Top 10 Unethical Psychological Experiments and 10 Scientists Who Completely Ignored The Idea Of Human Rights .

More Great Lists

The Top 10 Cases In The History Of Psychology

• By MS Broudy
• Published October 11, 2019
• Last Updated November 13, 2023
• Read Time 8 mins

Posted October 2019 by M.S. Broudy, B.A. English, B.A. Psychology; M.A. Social Psychology; Ph.D. Psychology; 6 updates since. Reading time: 8 min. Reading level: Grade 8+. Questions on the top cases in psychology history? Email Toni at: [email protected] .

Nothing captivates us more than the human mind. We are constantly attempting to understand the origins of behavior and the intricate workings of the brain. Throughout our history, there have been particular people whose story is so astonishing that they have remained a source of constant curiosity and learning. Here are 10 extraordinary cases from the realm of psychology that continue to fascinate.

Phineas Gage

In 1848, Phineas Gage was working as a foreman on a railroad crew in Vermont. While he was using a tamping iron to pack some explosive powder, the powder exploded, driving the iron through his head. Amazingly, he survived but friends noted that he no longer acted like the same person. He had limited intellectual ability and there were acute changes in his personality. He spewed profanity, was highly impulsive and showed little regard for other people. The change in Gage’s personality is consistent with damage to the orbitofrontal cortex of his frontal lobe, which impacts affect and emotion. It was one of the first cases to show a link between the brain and personality, in addition to cognitive functions.

Louis Victor Leborgne (Tan)

Similar to what H.M. did for memory, the case of Louis Victor Leborgne made significant contributions to the study of language production and comprehension. At age 30, he was admitted to a Paris hospital after losing his ability to speak. He could only say the word “tan” and was later called by that name in recalling his case. Despite his inability to speak, his cognitive functions appeared intact. Leborgne could comprehend what was being said to him and retained his intelligence. In 1861 he met physician Paul Broca after developing Gangrene. Upon Leborgne’s death, Broca examined his brain and found a lesion in his left frontal lobe. Due to Leborgne’s language, Broca postulated that this area of the brain was responsible for speech production. This area of the brain has become known as Broca’s area (Leborgne’s condition is called Broca’s aphasia) and is one of the most significant findings in the neurological study of speech.

Bertha Pappenheim (Anna O)

Bertha Pappenheim is thought to be the first person to undergo psychotherapy. Although her case is usually associated with the work of Sigmund Freud, it was his colleague, Joseph Breuer, who was initially her treating physician. Pappenheim suffered from “hysteria” as well as hallucinations and various ailments. Despite some records noting that she was cured by talk therapy, certain historians report that her improvements were temporary and she was never cured. Although Freud never met Pappenheim, he often publicly referred to Anna O. as the first recipient of the “talking cure” and said it was her case that was responsible for the birth of psychoanalysis.

Little Albert

In 1920, psychologist John Watson and his future wife, Rosalind Rayner, experimented on an infant to prove the theory of classical conditioning. They called the baby “Albert B.” And the case became known as the “Little Albert” experiment. Watson and Rayner paired a white rat and other objects with a loud noise to condition a fear response in Albert. The experiment showed that people can be conditioned to have emotional responses to a previously neutral object and that the response can be generalized to other stimuli. One of the most important conclusions drawn from the experiment is that early childhood experiences can influence later emotional development. Of course, scaring a baby for scientific purposes is now seen as highly unethical. The Little Albert experiment has become known as much for its lack of ethical boundaries as it has for its contributions to behavioral psychology.

Henry Gustav Molaison (H.M.)

In 1955, Henry Gustav Molaison (known frequently in the literature as H.M.) had brain surgery to cure himself of debilitating epilepsy. The surgery involved removing both halves of the hippocampus. Although the operation did relieve most of his seizures, it had an unintended effect: he could no longer form short-term memories. H.M. also suffered some retrograde amnesia, losing memories for 11 years before the operation. Otherwise, his long-term memory was intact. Because the surgery was so precise, it perfectly exhibited the role of the hippocampus in memory creation. H.M. was studied for the rest of his life and, upon his death, donated his brain to science. It would not be a stretch to say that he contributed more to the study of memory than any one subject.

Kitty Genovese

In 1964, Kitty Genovese was murdered on the street in Queens, New York. At the time, it was reported that a multitude of people saw her get killed and did nothing about it. Ever since, this event has been promoted as a prime example of the Bystander Effect: the more people that witness an event, the less likely they are to do something about it. Later investigations found that there were some discrepancies in the reporting and a couple of people at the scene may have indeed tried to report the crime. Although the basic principle of the Bystander Effect has held up over the past 50 years, the real legacy of the case is the research and activism it has inspired. The Genovese case has spurred an immense amount of psychological study across different areas, including forensic psychology and prosocial behavior. Additionally, it impacted the creation of victim services, Good Samaritan laws, and the 911 emergency call system.

Chris Costner Sizemore

You may not know the name Chris Costner Sizemore but you may have heard about her life in the movie “The Three Faces of Eve”. Sizemore’s case is one of the first and most famous involving multiple personalities, which is now known as Dissociative Identity Disorder. Until the publicity of her case, the possibility that people could have multiple personalities was, for most, a fantastical notion rather than a reality. In addition, Sizemore’s case shines a light on severe psychological consequences of early childhood trauma. Sizemore believes her different personalities developed as a way to cope with certain disturbing experiences she had when she was younger. After three of her personalities were publicized in the movie, she says she continued to experience other personalities throughout her life.

Genie was brought up in a house of extreme abuse and neglect. For most of her first 13 years, she was strapped onto a chair in a single room with almost no human interaction. When Genie was found, she possessed the development level of a one-year-old. She worked with numerous professionals and learned to develop motor skills and how to comprehend language. She also obtained a decent vocabulary, but could not catch up on her grammatical skills. It seemed Genie had missed a critical period of language development, proving you cannot learn grammatical language later in life. In addition to speech development, the case of Genie exhibits the effects of severe abuse and neglect. It also illustrates the great resiliency of human beings to overcome deprivation.

Kim Peek was the inspiration for Dustin Hoffman’s character in the movie Rain Man. Although many people believe he was autistic, he was a non-autistic savant, with exceptional mental abilities. His memory and capacity to perform certain mathematical calculations were nothing short of astounding. An MRI exam showed that Peek was lacking the corpus callosum, the part of the brain that connects the two hemispheres. It is thought that this brain abnormality contributed to his special abilities. Despite his uniqueness, his brain was not his biggest contribution to psychology. Ironically, the misconception of his autism helped to raise the profile of the little-known disorder into the mainstream. 

David Reimer (John/Joan Case)

David Reimer was born a boy but his penis was castrated by accident during a circumcision procedure. Instead of trying to reconstruct his penis, it was recommended by a doctor, John Money, that he be brought up as a girl. Money believed that gender was a choice and could override any natural inclination. As a result, when he was 17 months old, David underwent surgery and became Brenda Reimer. Despite Money’s assurances that the process was a success, David’s parents could tell that he was not happy as a girl. Eventually, when he was 14, his parents told him he was born a boy and David elected to reverse the gender reassignment process to become male again. David’s story has become a cautionary tale. He committed suicide at age 38. He spent much of his life campaigning against gender assignment surgery being forced upon children without consent. His case is one of the most high profile indications that gender identity is not a choice, attempting to undo the damage caused by John Money’s false assertions.

More Articles of Interest:

• How Is Technology Changing The Study Of Psychology?
• The 10 Most Important People In The History Of Psychology
• 10 Key Moments in the History of Psychology
• WWII And Its Impact On Psychology

Trending now