home / Self-development/ Experiment as a method of psychological research. Types of experiment in psychology Experiment as a method of research in psychology

Experiment as a method of psychological research. Types of experiment in psychology Experiment as a method of research in psychology

The word “experiment” is used by psychologists in two senses, which leads to some confusion. Often the phrase “experimental research” is used to mean empirical study, i.e. research, an essential part of which is obtaining experimental data using empirical methods. For example, as a synonym for empirical research, experimental research is interpreted in many “Experimental Psychology” textbooks, which, as a rule, present various designs of empirical research and describe methods of collecting empirical data such as conversation, observation, quasi-experiment, and experiment. IN in the narrow sense“experimental research” means an empirical study in which data collection is carried out using the experimental method. The specificity of the experimental method as a special method of data collection is, first of all, that it allows testing hypotheses about cause-and-effect relationships between variables. Experiment in a narrow sense - an empirical method, “involving the purposeful influence of a researcher on a situation under his control, a quantitative and qualitative assessment of the consequences of this influence in the phenomenon or process being studied, and the identification of causal relationships between the variables of the influence (independent) and the variables of its consequences (dependent)” (Breslav, 2010, p. 182).

The experiment is often called the “king of science.” In the methodological reflections of psychologists, it is often attributed the status of the most significant method. The dominant position of the experimental method relative to other methods is due to the fact that only in it is complete control over variables possible. The organization of the experiment allows us to exclude most of the side effects on the phenomenon of interest to the psychologist, obtain a fairly “clean” picture of changes in the dependent variable under the influence of the independent ones, and thereby draw a valid conclusion about the presence of a causal relationship between them.

The development of the experimental method played a very important role in the formation of psychology as an independent science. Thanks to experimentation, she managed to “emancipate” herself from speculative philosophical knowledge. The experimental method brought psychology closer to the natural sciences. Of course, the very idea of experimentation in order to test put forward theoretical positions was borrowed from the natural sciences, but it cannot be said that in psychology the experimental method was full copy physical experiments. From the very beginning, the experiment in psychology was distinguished by sufficient originality. Many experimentation techniques have no analogues in other disciplines due to the special status of the subject area of psychology. For example, in the laboratory of W. Wundt, experimental designs included methodological techniques introspection, and, in fact, the experimentation of the first psychological laboratories was a combination of the experiment itself with elements of subjective qualitative methods. J. Piaget's experiments led him to the formation of his own type of “clinical method”, in which experimental tests are combined with conversation and empathic adaptation to the child’s logic. The experiments of Gestalt psychologists were also distinguished by their originality. Experiments on solving a creative problem, carried out by K. Duncker, were aimed at a qualitative reconstruction of mental processes and represented more of a systematic observation in specially created conditions than an experiment in the strict sense of the word. It is worth mentioning the unique practice of experimentation in K. Levin’s school, when the experiment itself was transformed from an artificial situation into a certain “dramatic segment” of life, a “psychological space” in which personality is revealed (Zeigarnik, 2002).

An experiment in psychology is always the creation of a special situation of interaction between the subject and the experimenter, which radically distinguishes it from experiments in the field of natural sciences. Any experimental study includes instructions, so already at this level of explanation/invitation the experimenter is involved in interaction with the subject. In addition, psychological research is usually rooted in a particular social situation. Of course, the degree of expression of both the interactive and sociocultural components of the study depends on its type and the characteristics of the problem addressed in it, but in general we can say that in one form or another they are inherent in all psychological research, not excluding strict in the scientific sense of experimentation. Another thing is that in justifying the experimental method, this contextual nature of the study, as a rule, is not taken into account. More precisely, the experimental method is presented in such a way that the main problem (and main task) of the researcher is control over the situation, including control over variables related to interaction with the subject. According to supporters experimental method, it is necessary to strive to ensure that the effect of communication factors between the experimenter and the subjects is reduced to zero. However, such requirements are themselves rooted in a certain system of ideas about scientificity, based on the idea of the “absolute observer” that has long been called into question. In reality, the practice of experimentation in psychology has never distanced itself from the communicative context; the latter was always not only taken into account, but was an integral part of the holistic experimental situation, in which the experimenter had to act not only as a research scientist, but also as a competent communicator.

Example 17.1

Positioning in an experimental situation

In the last twenty years, in connection with the development of the social constructionist movement and discourse analytical approaches in psychology, the communicative component of the experiment has become a very frequent subject of methodological discussion. I. Leder and C. Antaki (Leudar, Antaki, 1996) convincingly show that in order to adequately understand what happens during the experiment, it is necessary to take into account the fact that all psychological experiments are dialogues in which both researchers, and subjects always play the role of active participants, with each of them having the opportunity to take different positions in the discourse. Leder and Antaki give, in particular, such an example.

Let's imagine the following experiment (it actually took place) conducted to test the theory of cognitive dissonance. The subjects were invited to take part in some experimental tests (it doesn’t matter which ones, since that’s not what the experiment was about). The subjects arrived at the appointed place, and there they were asked to wait a little. While they were waiting, a situation was deliberately created when they had to unwittingly overhear the details of the upcoming experiment, which were told by a person who had allegedly just gone through it (in fact, a figurehead). Then they were invited to the experimental room, where they performed some tasks. The experimenter asked half of the subjects if they could take part in the next session. Everyone agreed. It was assumed that such a request and the response to it strengthen the subjects’ obligations to the experimenter, and they are able to be aware of this. Finally, all subjects—both those who were asked to participate in the next session and those who were not—were asked whether they had heard anything about the experiment before entering the room. Those who agreed to continue participating in the experiments gave less honest answers. From the researchers' point of view, these results support the theory of cognitive dissonance they are testing: the more pronounced the commitment associated with the experiment (operationalized as agreeing to take part again), the more difficult it is to accept something that might destroy it, and, accordingly, the more stronger desire hide the fact that he inadvertently overheard the details of the experiment. Leder and Antaki problematize this conclusion. Well-versed in critical “experimental ethnography,” they ask what communicative stances research participants might take. For example, subjects give or do not give consent to subsequent participation in the experiment. This answer is understood by researchers as follows: “I associate myself with the experiment” or, accordingly, “I do not associate myself with the experiment.” Behind this understanding is the assumption that all participants adopted the same line of positioning, in which the subject acts as an “ordinary speaker,” included together with the experimenter in a conversation based on personal cooperation. In the context of a specific laboratory setting, however, subjects often say only what is required of them; they may not have any personal acceptance of the communicative line of cooperation. But then what kind of cognitive attitudes towards consent can we talk about? The same applies to the subjects' answers to the question whether they overheard details of the experiment in the waiting room. A negative answer was taken as “a lie necessary to reduce cognitive dissonance.” This understanding is again based on the assumption of the roles of "ordinary speaker and listener" and the obvious dialogue game of "question-answer". However, the communication lines of speakers can be very diverse, and in this case the meaning of the answer will also be different, and it is not at all necessary to associate it with the need to reduce cognitive dissonance.

According to Leder and Antaki, the meanings of experimental operationalizations are so malleable that they (and therefore the experiment as a whole) are susceptible to a huge number of interpretations. It could be argued that the problem here is only with the internal validity of the study, which could be resolved by more precise control over the words and the experimental setting. But no changes in words can exclude the very fact of the researcher’s presence in the process of dialogue and the subjects’ search for the participants’ optimal position for them. Experimenters are always involved in a conversation with subjects, the structure of which is far from naive simplicity; and in order to conduct a dialogue, experimenters must appeal to their own practical knowledge of communicative situations. In interpretation, researchers, as a rule, tend to ignore their own role in communication: all participants are placed in a standard world formed by only two positions: the speaker and the listener, which allows us to think that we have direct access to the subjectivity of the one who speaks, and therefore we can explain the statements of the subjects in the context of the put forward theory.

Note that it is necessary to take into account the forms of positioning not only in actual communication, but also in a broader social context. This is usually specifically discussed by proponents of qualitative methods, especially discourse analytic approaches. However, not only research procedures based on qualitative methods, but also standardized questionnaires are created and exist within the framework of certain social debates and social ideas. By asking respondents questions regarding mental well-being and attitudes towards themselves or certain aspects of reality, psychologists confront them with the need to take a position in the world of social values and ideas. So questionnaires do not simply record individual patterns, attitudes, etc., as is commonly believed, but create conditions for people to position themselves and their interlocutors. Psychologists conducting research also cannot remain outside of social controversy. It turns out that researchers and those being studied during the research process can be positioned on the same or opposite sides of the barricades. And the respondents’ answers reflect this situation, while psychologists take them to be the expression of context-independent psychological states or structures (Ibid.).

Experimental research begins with identifying the problem area. Most often, it is preceded by a rather long period of analysis of scientific publications on a topic of interest to the researcher. Identifying a problem entails constructing a theoretical hypothesis that explains the problematic phenomenon. Once a theoretical explanation is formulated, empirical implications are derived from it and formulated as hypotheses about cause-and-effect relationships between variables. The logic of thinking goes something like this: if the proposed theory is correct, then a cause-and-effect relationship must be established between specific independent and dependent variables (Campbell, 1996; Basic Methods of Data Collection in Psychology, 2012). According to D. Campbell (1996), a cause-and-effect relationship between variables can be established if three requirements are met:

1) a change in the independent variable must precede in time a change in the dependent variable;
2) when the independent variable changes, a statistically significant change in the dependent variable must be observed;
3) a change in the dependent variable should not be due to a change in other (collateral) variables.

The next stage is planning and conducting the experiment itself to test empirical hypotheses about the relationship between variables. In the very general view The experimental procedure consists in the fact that the researcher purposefully changes the independent variable, measures the indicators of the dependent variable at different levels of the independent one, and creates conditions that exclude possible alternative explanations for the change in the dependent variable as due to the influence of secondary variables (Basic methods of data collection in psychology, 2012). If the researcher was able to show that the differences in the indicators of the dependent variable at different levels of the independent variable are statistically significant, then we can conclude that there are cause-and-effect relationships between the dependent and independent variables. If the differences in the indicators of the dependent variable are not statistically significant, it is concluded that the experiment failed to obtain data on the existence of cause-and-effect relationships between the variables. It should be borne in mind that in this case a stronger conclusion about the absence of a cause-and-effect relationship between the dependent and independent variables will be invalid, since the statistical criteria are designed in such a way that it is impossible to prove the absence of differences with their help (ibid., p. 146 ).

Let's note the following: the presence of a cause-and-effect relationship between variables follows logically from the theory, so if the theory is true, a cause-and-effect relationship must be observed. But the truth of the theory does not follow with logical necessity from the presence of a cause-and-effect relationship between the independent and dependent variables shown in the experiment, since this connection can be explained by other theories. In general, the transition from empirical data to theoretical principles quite complicated. A conclusion regarding the status of a theory is not a statement that follows mechanically from empirical data. These are always conceptual reflections, theoretically loaded interpretations, and the researcher not only refers to the results of empirical tests, but also weighs the quality of theoretical judgments: logical coherence, consistency, plausibility, explanatory potential, significance in the context of achievements in a particular subject area. In general, the truth of a theory cannot be proven empirically. Experiments are just a way to test a theory for strength. In essence, a conclusion about the falsity of a theory cannot be made on the basis of empirical data alone: this is possible only with the help of another theory that has stood the test of strength and has greater explanatory potential and greater conceptual power.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

Test

Experiment as a method of psychological research

Introduction

1. Methods of empirical research

2. Experimental method

3. Main characteristics of the experiment

4. Assessing the quality of a psychological experiment

5. Specifics of organizing experimental communication

6. Organization and conduct of reproducing research

Conclusion

List of used literature

Introduction

Observable actions and behavior of a person allow us to judge, to a certain extent, how the the world his psyche, how its reflected activity proceeds and is carried out. It is this circumstance that makes the existence of psychology as a science possible. At the same time, one should always remember that the connection between external conditions and observed human behavior is not direct or unambiguous. The reflections of the world that control his behavior include all of his past personal experience and the experience of society acquired through training. And the needs of a person, and his desires, goals, values, attitude towards the world.

This entire set of information, attitudes towards the surrounding world, aspirations and modes of behavior that a person has and is guided by is called internal conditions. Accordingly, we can say that external conditions influence human behavior through internal conditions. It is for this reason that, as a rule, it is impossible to unambiguously judge the internal processes that take place in his psyche from the external observable behavior of a person. This is the main difficulty of psychological research. The same behavior can be caused by different people for a variety of reasons and considerations. And, conversely, the same feeling, goal, idea can be expressed in completely different ways by different people. different actions.

The challenge of all methods scientific psychology it lies, first of all, in creating conditions under which the connection between observed behavior and the mental causes that determine it would become as unambiguous as possible.

The object of our research is the experimental method in psychology.

The subject of the study is the specific features of experiment as a method of testing a theory with experimental data.

The purpose of the study is to characterize the experiment and identify its specific features.

Research objectives:

1. Analyze the psychological literature on the research topic.

2. Describe the experiment as a method of psychological research

3. Describe the properties of experiment as a scientific method

4. Identify specific features of the experiment

5. Describe the conditions necessary for an effective experiment

empirical study condition experiment

1. Methods of empirical research

The arsenal of scientific methodology includes various methods, techniques, approaches, types of strategies, methods of experiment planning and logical rules. They vary from problem to problem and from discipline to discipline. For many years, experimental psychologists in the United States did not conduct research that was not consistent with the paradigm in which an effect of a variable is introduced (or assumed) and then the effects are observed. The traditional experimental design followed a single pattern: establishing cause-and-effect relationships between events and their consequences.

But there are many psychological problems, for which such a straightforward paradigm turns out to be ineffective, therefore the use of more suitable methods is required. Such problems include studying the consumer demand of steel mill workers in Pittsburgh, the difference in the rates of manic-depressive illness in Miami and Seattle, or fashion trends over the past century. These and hundreds of similar topics are of great interest, benefit and significance for psychologists and can be studied scientifically, using empirical methods that allow reliable results to be obtained. The researcher's task is to make decisions and justify them. Therefore, it is important that the student of experimental psychology be familiar with a variety of research methods in order to know when it is appropriate (and when it is not) to use a particular experimental design.

It is important to have some standard means of collecting data in non-experimental research, such as those based on observations of a subject (or subjects) over a period of time. Let's consider an example of a non-traditional research paradigm.

As this example shows, the elements of time and event frequency are essential components of observational data. Three different methods are used to quantify the behavior of subjects. These are the frequency method, duration method and interval method.

This method is based on counting specific instances of behavior within a certain period of time. Thus, if you are interested in children's aggressive behavior in a playground, you might operationally define aggressive behavior and record instances of that behavior over, for example, a 30-minute period.

Provides for recording the duration of each episode of behavior of interest. In the case of studying aggressive behavior, it is possible, for example, to record the duration of each episode of aggressive behavior.

This is an observation method in which time is divided into intervals, such as 3 minutes each. The observer then records in which intervals this or that behavior (for example, aggressive) fell. Information of this kind provides information about the sequence of behavior.

As the term itself suggests, observations in natural conditions-- these are “field” studies based on observations of subjects in natural conditions.

Typically, the researcher does not attempt to change environmental conditions to assess the influence of a particular independent variable, but instead the social conditions and subjects themselves stimulate the events that become sources of data. In some sense, all people are natural scientists, that is, we all observe other people in their natural environment, be it an airport, a supermarket, a bachelor's bar, a classroom, or a theater. However, it should be emphasized here that since the objects of observation are in natural conditions and not in the laboratory, the methodology of scientific observations in this case is less precisely defined.

Observation in natural conditions involves the systematic recording of information perceived by the researcher. The place for such observation may be areas where no person has set foot, for example. For a long time, naturalistic observation was taboo in American psychology. Recently, however, it has achieved great popularity and is again being seen as an important method of data collection. Even under current conditions, scientists must remember that in the process of observation in natural conditions it is necessary to record their objective and systematic results in order to protect against distortion of information from personal biases, feelings and inclinations.

Suppose you are interested in a problem that has intrigued the imagination of people for many centuries - nocturnal behavior during the full moon. Numerous legends say (experimental psychologists are very suspicious of legends) that at this time people begin to feel restless and do strange things - hence the origin of the word “sleepwalker”.

Random information, which sometimes becomes the source of various hypotheses, suggests that during a full moon people sleep worse, have more dreams, and drink more alcohol than usual. Police, hospital, ambulance and other professionals who deal with accident victims report an increased incidence of abnormal behavior during the full moon, and some studies confirm these findings. Several years ago, one of our students, who was on duty at night in a psychiatric hospital, collected data on how many times patients got up at night depending on the phase of the moon. The relationship was positive, but its cause remained uncertain. Perhaps the reason for this was simply better lighting than on other nights, allowing patients to go to the bathroom without tripping over obstacles.

To collect reliable data on patients' nocturnal activity and its relationship to lunar phases, it is important to establish operational criteria for this type of behavior. Since the number of times a patient visits the toilet may simply be determined by lighting conditions, it is necessary to conduct more detailed observations of such features as the patient's body position during sleep, how many times he turns over in his sleep, what kind of dreams he has, and then correlate the results of observations with the phases of the moon. All these observations must be made extremely unobtrusively, so that the observer does not become an unwitting disturbing factor. Moreover, each factor must be quantified, which may require sophisticated instrumentation (although it should be noted that many natural observations do not require special equipment). To record body positions during sleep, the experimenter may record how many times the patient turns from one position (eg, face up) to another (face down) during the night. Nocturnal activity can be empirically measured by setting the bed to four microswitches capable of detecting bed swaying. Dream frequency can be measured by attaching microsensors to a sleeper's eyelids to record rapid eye movements associated with dream intensity. A special table is provided to record the values of these three variables (dependent variables in this study).

Using another example of this type of research - in natural settings - we will now look at a field study. This study was conducted using the "lost letter method", in which people are given fictitious letters to see if they will send them to the recipients. The number of bounces (that is, the number of lost letters sent) is measured, for example, for different areas.

Bryson and Hamblin (1988) used this method to estimate the return rate of postcards containing either neutral or bad news. Pay attention to the return rate depending on the type of news and the gender of the subjects.

Other productive research methods include surveys, personal interviews, content analysis, archival research, and participant observation, among others. As mentioned earlier, research process consists of a series of decisions that the researcher must make and justifications that he must make. Careful consideration of the research topic, specific issue, available resources and the most adequate research methodology. Understanding the variety of research methods will help you make decisions when you need to choose an experimental design.

2. Experimental method

The Greek philosopher Aristotle, when describing the acceleration of falling objects, began by saying that, according to “logic,” heavier bodies should fall at a faster rate than lighter ones. From the top of a building, a boulder should fall to the ground faster than a stone because the boulder is heavier. Many people still believe that a cannonball falls faster than a small lead ball, given other factors. “Common sense logic” seems valid, but science does not trust common sense logic. Galileo questioned the validity of this logical conclusion and, as all schoolchildren now know, decided to observe the relative speed of falling objects. His laboratory was the Leaning Tower of Pisa (although any tall building could have been used just as well, the mention of the tower makes the story more interesting now, centuries later, and undoubtedly attracts hordes of tourists to Northern Italy).

In retrospect, we can see that Galileo's experimental procedure consisted of four sequential steps that are strikingly consistent with modern ideas about scientific research:

Statement of hypothesis. Objects of different weights will fall to the ground at the same speed.

Observations. Measuring the relative speeds of falling objects of different weights.

Reproducibility. Numerous observations have been made of objects of varying weights.

1 Formulation of the law (or model). If observations confirm the hypothesis about the relationship between the weights of objects and the speeds at which they fall, then a generalized conclusion can be formulated.

Of course, this early experiment was complicated by problems that we will call control problems.

First, Galileo had to make sure that both objects began to fall at the same instant. For example, if he decided to throw them with his hands, there might be a tendency to throw the largest and heaviest object first. Or if he wanted to support his hypothesis, he could unknowingly release the lighter object first to give it an initial brief head start in time, even psychological factors influence scientific observations in physics!). To control these problems, Galileo could have designed a box with a barrier door so that both objects would fall out at the same time. Then we can mention the issue of measuring the speed of fall, which determines which object hits the ground first. Based on the criteria of objectivity, it was necessary to have an outside observer or observers who could reliably note the moment the objects fell. There is another important variable that could affect the results of the experiment: the effect of atmospheric conditions, such as air resistance, on falling objects. Observation shows that a feather falls more slowly than a copper ball of the same weight. A means of controlling the air resistance variable would be to remove all air from the laboratory. But since Galileo's laboratory consisted of the Leaning Tower of Pisa and its immediate surroundings, the design of such a vacuum chamber was not possible with the technology of the time. (It is interesting that already in our time the speed of falling objects in a vacuum was measured, and its data confirmed the results of Galileo’s observations.). The crude experiments of Galileo's time were replaced by more modern and improved measurements, which confirmed that any objects, be they feathers or copper balls, when falling are affected by a gravitational force of constant size (gravitational constant). The principle on which this law is based is called the principle of equivalence, and it is considered one of the fundamental laws affecting physical bodies throughout the Universe. The law of gravity and the experiments on the basis of which it was derived can be considered at two levels of constructing scientific research. The first level is the level of basic observation; the second level is the awareness that this observation is part of a larger system.

Experiments can be natural, laboratory, or formative. A natural experiment is characterized by minor changes in normal conditions, such as training and education. In this type of experiment, they try to minimally change the conditions and context in which the mental phenomenon of interest to the psychologist occurs. A natural experiment to study, for example, emotional interpersonal preferences in classroom, may consist of congratulating students on the holiday using cards. The student who receives the maximum number of postcards will be the emotional leader who receives minimal amount-- unelected. A laboratory experiment is distinguished by strict standardization of conditions, allowing maximum isolation of the phenomenon under study and abstraction from changing conditions environment. A formative experiment involves the implementation of research results into practice with the subsequent study of the changes that arise as a result of such innovations. In addition, there is an experiment that tests hypotheses about the causal influence of a certain factor on the psyche, and an experiment that establishes the conditions for the formation of mental processes or functions. Each of them has its own sequence of stages. Thus, a testing experiment includes 5 stages.

1. Setting goals, objectives and hypotheses of the study (preparatory).

Research methods are determined. The problem is analyzed, the relevance and level of development of the problem are discussed.

2 - Pilot study - a preliminary analysis of any important characteristics of the sample with which the experimental study is being conducted. This stage includes testing and debugging the technique that will be further used in the experiment. A pilot study clarifies goals, objectives, etc.

Conducting an experimental procedure - they include a number of experiments (minimum 2). Experiments are carried out with two groups.

Mathematical analysis of empirical research data.

Psychological interpretation of the research results. It indicates whether the hypothesis is confirmed. This is proven by research data. It is indicated how the problems were solved, after which recommendations are offered.

An experiment studying the conditions for the formation of mental processes by creating appropriate conditions and controlling other possible influences includes the stages:

Setting goals, hypotheses, tasks. This stage includes analytical review conducted research in the area chosen by the researcher to clarify what remains undeveloped and requires study. Based on the analysis, a hypothesis, goals, and objectives of the study are built.

Analysis of methods, techniques, selection of experimental methods of influence and control.

A confirmatory experiment is carried out; it is aimed at recording the initial level of development of the function of interest to the psychologist. This stage is carried out using tests.

A formative experiment is aimed at training, development, formation of any skills, any mental functions.

The control experiment is aimed at studying those changes in mental functions that are presumably associated with the training.

6. Mathematical data analysis and psychological conclusions.

In experimental psychology there are different kinds experiment. The most frequently identified are the following.

* Laboratory - carried out in specially created, often artificial conditions, in order to isolate the so-called “pure” variable, with mandatory control and registration of the influence of all other conditions and factors, excluding side ones. Classic examples of experiments using the introspection method are experiments conducted in the laboratory of V. Wundt and his followers, using objective observation methods - in the laboratories of I. P. Pavlov, V. M. Bekhterev and others.

Natural (field) - an experiment conducted in natural conditions. One of its varieties is the included experiment, when the researcher himself is a participant in the experiment.

A traditional experiment involves recording changes in one variable.

A factorial experiment involves recording changes in several variables.

A pilot experiment is carried out in cases where the area being studied is unknown and there is no system of hypotheses.

A decisive experiment is carried out when one of two competing hypotheses must be chosen.

A control experiment is carried out to test any dependence.

Formative (educational) experiment - is carried out mainly in differential psychology, personality psychology, age and educational psychology. In order to study ways of personality formation, design, creation, testing and implementation of effective forms of training and education, psycho-counseling, psycho-correctional influence, etc.

The identified types of experiments are not an isolated and frozen classification; it is quite arbitrary, like any other. Some types of experiments can be leading and defining, others can be used as additional ones, entering the general paradigm of psychological research.

3. Main characteristics of the experiment

Empirical research is one of the types of research that uses experimental methods of cognition.

EXPERIMENT as a method of psychological research involves the active intervention of the researcher in the life activity of the subject in order to create conditions in which any psychological fact is revealed. The advantages of the experiment are: an active position of the observer, the possibility of repetition, strictly controlled conditions. Disadvantages include artificial conditions and high costs for controlling significant factors.

EXPERIMENT as a method emerges in modern times due to the rapid development of natural science. Modern times are the period of formation of natural science paradigms. At the origins of the tradition of testing theoretical statements experimentally is G. Galileo. In the works of G. Galileo, a turn in science took place: from the idea of hierarchy, Galileo moved on to the idea of mathematization. The idea of hierarchy asserted the “subordination” of things: every thing, every object has its place in the universal hierarchical order. The second idea asserted a certain juxtaposition of objects, which therefore turned out to be commensurable and countable. This idea constitutes the premise of the experiment, because an experiment always requires measurement procedures. An experiment, on the one hand, is considered as an empirical (experimental) method, on the other hand, as a certain logic of the researcher’s reasoning (the course of his reasoning in accordance with the rules).

In science, along with the empirical, thought experiments are used. A thought experiment operates on a sample rather than on a real object and evaluates the properties of the object without resorting to actual experimental interaction. R. Gottsdanker designates such an experiment as ideal, full compliance. In contrast, an experiment conducted in the course of experimental interaction allows for a certain “unreliability”. An empirical (experimental) experiment includes mental samples and their evaluation, but this is not the only determining condition of the experiment.

A thought experiment also acts as a plan for the researcher’s thinking, setting the course of the experiment. Thus, thought experiments and empirical experiments are both contrasted and considered in relation to each other in real research.

An empirical experiment (using mental forms of planning) before the actual empirical procedures begin meets the standards of scientific research. In order for an experiment to fulfill all its objectives, it must be carried out in accordance with regulations. The term “standard” characterizes all scientific activity and culture as a whole, which are normative because they include the use of established (accepted, proven, justified) methods of concepts and thinking patterns that a person who does not have scientific knowledge and does not perform the corresponding activity does not have. The standards of professional thinking of a scientist do not coincide with the rules of ordinary thinking and sometimes seem quite artificial. This happens because such standards are supra-individual, born and developed in science, and not in the activities of one person. The standards of scientific thinking are a reflected, ordered system of research methods that determines the structuring of the subject.

The features of the experimental paradigm are the following: 1) analytical approach, use of variables, 2) comparative approach, consideration experimental effects as a consequence of causal factors controlled by the researcher, 3) control over the conclusion about the influence of the factor being studied on the psyche, assessing the possibility of rejecting or accepting a psychological hypothesis.

All this determines the formulation of standards for psychological research as scientific research. Science, according to M.K. Mamardashvili, this is something that a person treats as more integral than himself, and that pulls him out of the chaos, decay and dispersion of everyday life, Everyday life, from spontaneous relationships to the world and to one’s own kind.

The experiment tests the hypothesis about the pattern, structure, cause-and-effect relationships (dependence). Dependency and influence are words that indicate experiment. The experiment involves the establishment of connections that are not random, are repeated, and also include the impact of one element of the connection on another.

The norm of experimental research is also the division of the concept of “experimentation” in a broad and narrow sense. In a broad sense, experimentation represents the creation of conditions for determination, controlled conditions for the activities of subjects. In a narrow sense, experimentation involves testing causal hypotheses—assumptions about cause-and-effect relationships.

Wundt's original experiment was a psychophysiological experiment. It consisted essentially in registering physiological reactions, accompanying mental processes, which was accompanied by introspection.

Wundt's experiment was entirely built on the dualistic theory of external parallelism between the mental and physiological. These methodological principles formed the basis of the experimental methodology and determined the first steps of experimental psychology.

But the experimental technique soon began to pave several other paths for itself. A significant stage in this regard was the research of G. Ebbinghaus on memory (see the chapter on memory). Instead of studying exclusively the relationship between physical stimuli, physiological processes and accompanying phenomena of consciousness, Ebbinghaus directed the experiment to study the course of the psychological process under certain objective conditions.

The experiment in psychology, which arose in the border area of psychophysics and psychophysiology, subsequently began to move from elementary processes of sensation to higher mental processes; This advancement into other areas was associated with a change in the very nature of the experiment. From studying the relationship between an individual physical stimulus or physiological stimulus and the corresponding mental process, he came to the study of the patterns of the occurrence of mental processes themselves under certain conditions. From an external cause, physical facts became conditions of the mental process. The experiment moved on to studying its internal laws. Since then, and mainly for last years The experiment has received very diverse forms and is widely used in various fields of psychology - in animal psychology, in general psychology and in child psychology. However, some of the newest experiments are distinguished by great rigor of methodology; in simplicity, elegance and accuracy of results, they are sometimes not inferior to the best examples created by such mature experimental sciences, such as physics.

A number of chapters of modern psychology can already rely on precise experimental data. Modern psychology of perception is especially rich in them.

Three considerations have been put forward against the laboratory experiment. It was stated:

1) the artificiality of the experiment,

2) on the analyticity and abstractness of the experiment

3) on the complicating role of the experimenter’s influence.

The artificiality of the experiment or its distance from life is not due to the fact that the experiment excludes some complicating conditions encountered in life situations. An experiment becomes artificial only because it contains conditions that are essential for the phenomenon being studied. Thus, G. Ebbinghaus’s experiments with meaningless material are artificial, since they do not take into account semantic connections, while in most cases these connections play significant role in memory work. If Ebbinghaus' memory theory were essentially correct, that is, if only mechanical repetitions, purely associative connections determined reproduction, Ebbinghaus's experiments would not be artificial. The essence of an experiment, in contrast to simple observation, is determined not by the artificiality of the conditions in which it is carried out, but by the presence of the experimenter’s influence on the process to be studied. Therefore, the artificiality of a traditional laboratory experiment must be overcome primarily within the experimental method.

A certain analyticity and abstractness was largely characteristic of the laboratory experiment. An experiment usually takes the process it studies in isolation, within one specific system of conditions. Disclosure of the relationship between various functions and changes in the process of development of the laws of the flow of mental processes require additional methodological tools. They are delivered mainly by genetic and pathological methods. Further, an experiment in psychology is usually carried out in conditions far from those in which human practical activity takes place. Since the patterns that the experiment revealed were of a very general, abstract nature, they did not provide the possibility of direct conclusions for the organization of human activity in production work or the pedagogical process. An attempt to apply these abstract laws to practice often turned into a mechanical transfer of results obtained under one conditions to others, often completely dissimilar. This abstractness of the psychological experiment forced us to look for new methodological techniques for solving practical problems.

The question of the influence of the experimenter’s influence on the subject is very complex and significant. To overcome the difficulties arising in connection with this, sometimes they try to eliminate the direct influence of the experimenter and design the experiment so that the situation itself, and not the direct intervention of the experimenter (instructions, etc.), evokes in the subject the acts to be studied. However, since an experiment by its very essence always includes the direct or indirect influence of the experimenter, the question is not so much how to eliminate this influence, but how to correctly take into account and organize it.

When assessing and interpreting the results of an experiment, it is necessary to specifically identify and take into account the attitude of the subject to the experimental task and the experimenter. This is necessary because the behavior of the subject in the experiment is not an automatic reaction, but a specific manifestation of a personality that establishes its attitude towards the environment. This attitude affects her behavior in the experimental situation.

When using an experiment in psychology, we must never forget that any intervention by the experimenter, in order to study mental phenomena, at the same time inevitably turns out to be a means of beneficial or harmful influence on the person being studied. This position acquires particular significance when studying the psychology of a child. It imposes a limitation on the use of the experiment, which cannot be ignored. It must also be borne in mind that data obtained in an experimental situation can only be correctly interpreted when taken in relation to the conditions under which they were obtained. Therefore, in order to correctly interpret the results of a psychological experiment, it is necessary to compare the conditions of the experiment with the pre-experimental situation and with the conditions of the entire development path of a given person and interpret the direct data of the experiment in relation to them.

Taking all this into account, it is necessary:

1) transform the experiment from the inside in order to overcome the artificiality of the traditional experiment;

2) supplement the experiment with other methodological means. To solve the same problems:

3) methodological options are introduced, which are intermediate forms between experiment and observation, and other auxiliary methods.

A unique version of the experiment, representing, as it were, intermediate form between observation and experiment, is the method of the so-called natural experiment, proposed by A.F. Lazursky.

His main tendency to combine experimental research with natural conditions is very valuable and significant. Specifically, this tendency in Lazursky’s method of natural experiment is implemented as follows: with the method of natural experiment, the conditions in which the activity under study occurs are subject to experimental influence, while the activity of the subject is observed in its natural course.

For example, preliminary analysis the significance of various objects is revealed schooling, their influence on the manifestation of certain mental processes of the child, which are then studied in the natural conditions of school work on this subject. Or it is preliminarily established in which game this or that character trait is especially clearly manifested; then, in order to study the manifestation of this trait in different children, they are involved in this game. During this game, the researcher observes their activities in natural conditions. Instead of transferring the phenomena being studied to laboratory conditions, they try to take into account the influence and select natural conditions that correspond to the goals of the study. Under these appropriately selected conditions, the processes to be studied are observed in their natural course, without any intervention on the part of the experimenter.

A.F. Lazursky avoided direct influence on the child in the interests of “naturalness.” But in reality, the child develops under conditions of upbringing and training, that is, influence on him in a certain way. Compliance with the natural conditions of development therefore does not in any way require the elimination of any influence at all. The impact based on the type of pedagogical process is quite natural. We introduce it into the experiment, thus implementing a new version of the “natural” experiment, which should, in our opinion, occupy a central place in the methodology of psychological and pedagogical research of the child.

Basic system psychological methods, in its totality allowing to resolve all the tasks facing it, is deployed in its main links. In this indicative description of methods, of course, only general framework. Every method, in order to become a valid means of scientific research, must first be the result of research. It is not a form imposed on the material from the outside, not just an external technical device. It presupposes knowledge of real dependencies: in physics - physical, in psychology - psychological.

The reflexological method in physiology, which serves as a means of physiological research, was built on the preliminary discovery and study of reflexes; it is both the result and the means of studying the patterns of reflex activity - first the result and only then the means; in the same way, an associative experiment is based on the doctrine of associations.

Therefore, each psychological discipline has its own methodology, different from the methodology of others; The methods of animal psychology are different from the methods of human psychology: introspection disappears, and other methods are transformed. And each individual problem has its own special methodology designed to study it. In connection with the definition of the subject of psychology, only the main types of methods and general principles their construction.

4. Assessing the quality of a psychological experiment

The specificity of an experiment as a method of psychological research is that it purposefully and thoughtfully creates an artificial situation in which the property being studied is highlighted, manifested and assessed best. The main advantage of the experiment is that it allows, more reliably than all other methods, to draw conclusions about the cause-and-effect relationships of the phenomenon under study with other phenomena, and to scientifically explain the origin of the phenomenon and its development. However, organizing and conducting a real psychological experiment that meets all the requirements in practice can be difficult, so in scientific research it is less common than other methods.

This drawback applies to all research methods based on self-control, i.e., associated with the use of verbal and behavioral consciously controlled reactions. There are two main types of experiment: natural and laboratory. They differ from each other in that they allow one to study the psychology and behavior of people in conditions that are remote or close to reality. A natural experiment is organized and carried out in ordinary life conditions, where the experimenter practically does not interfere with the course of events, recording them as they unfold on their own.

A laboratory experiment involves creating some artificial situation in which the property being studied can best be studied. The data obtained in a natural experiment best corresponds to a typical life behavior the individual, the real psychology of people, but are not always accurate due to the experimenter’s lack of ability to strictly control the influence of various factors on the property being studied. The results of a laboratory experiment, on the contrary, are superior in accuracy, but inferior in the degree of naturalness - correspondence to life.

The main features of the experiment that determine its strength are as follows.

1) In an experiment, the researcher himself causes the phenomenon he is studying, instead of waiting, as in objective observation until a random stream of phenomena gives him the opportunity to observe it.

2) Having the opportunity to cause the phenomenon being studied, the experimenter can vary, change the conditions under which the phenomenon occurs, instead of, as with simple observation, taking them as chance gives them to him.

3) By isolating individual conditions and changing one of them while keeping the others unchanged, the experiment thereby reveals the meaning of individual conditions and establishes natural connections that determine the process it is studying. The experiment is thus a very powerful methodological tool for identifying patterns.

4) By identifying regular connections between phenomena, the experimenter can vary not only the conditions themselves in the sense of their presence or absence, but also their quantitative relationships. As a result of the experiment, quantitative patterns that can be formulated mathematically are established. It was mainly thanks to experiment that natural science came to the discovery of the laws of nature.

The main task of a psychological experiment is to make the essential features of the internal mental process accessible to objective external observation. To do this, it is necessary, by varying the conditions for the flow of external activity, to find a situation in which the external flow of the act would adequately reflect its internal psychological content. The task of experimentally varying conditions in a psychological experiment is, first of all, to reveal the correctness of one single psychological interpretation of an action or deed, excluding the possibility of all others.

5. Specifics of organizing experimental communication

Psychological research is a complex multi-stage research work that can include various methods: non-experimental (observation, conversation, etc.); experiment; psychodiagnostic examination (measurement). As already noted, the fundamental difference between an experiment and a psychological examination is that an experiment is the main method for testing causal hypotheses (about cause-and-effect relationships and dependencies), and a psychological (psychodiagnostic) examination is a measurement procedure designed to identify those of interest to the researcher (diagnostician). facts, collect the necessary empirical data, which only with subsequent processing by other methods can be interpreted and analyzed in order to identify relationships, including cause-and-effect relationships. At the same time, the procedures for conducting experiments and psychological examinations have many common points. And a conscientious researcher, conducting a psychological examination, strives to to the greatest extent bring the conditions of its implementation closer to experimental ones.

Therefore, in this chapter, considering the procedural features of conducting an experiment and psychological examination, we will focus only on their distinctive points.

The basic rules and requirements for conducting an experiment must also be followed when conducting a psychological examination.

The researcher (experimenter) must have the necessary professional and personal qualities: understand and understand the objectives of the study, have a good knowledge of the experiment (examination) procedure and the rules for its conduct, master the methods of data processing and evaluate the results, be able to control oneself, have sufficient emotional balance, sociability and tact.

Experimental psychological research is of great and varied importance both for the most psychological science, and for the practical study of the psychological characteristics of the social sample under study.

A psychological experiment makes it possible to voluntarily evoke those mental processes that are subject to either theoretical study or improvement, correction in a specific individual, without waiting for the moment when they arise involuntarily in ordinary activities.

Voluntary activation of mental processes allows for appropriate objective recording of the results of the subject’s activity, supplemented by equally targeted observation of all its external manifestations.

The experimenter, by appropriately changing the experimental conditions, influences the course of the activated mental processes, learns to a certain extent to control them, observe them from different angles and understand them more deeply.

The experiment makes it possible to study the manifestation of psychological phenomena not only from their qualitative originality, but also to evaluate them, measure the quantitative side, using the apparatus of mathematical and statistical analysis.

By placing various subjects under study in the process of a psychological experiment in the same operating conditions, while observing the manifestations of their mental characteristics and recording the corresponding indicators, it is possible to obtain comparable empirical data that help deepen the understanding of the range of possible changes and identify cause-and-effect relationships of the studied mental phenomena.

The most valuable data are obtained from repeated experimental psychological studies, and even more so in the course of longitudinal studies. They allow, on the one hand, to clarify the results, and on the other hand, to identify essential relationships, trends, and patterns of development of the quality under study. Deep, full-scale psychological research includes various research methods: psychological observation, laboratory or field experiment (i.e., conducted in artificial or natural conditions), traditional experiment (change in one variable), factorial experiment (change in several variables), pilot experiment (when the area of study is unknown and there is no system of hypotheses), decisive, control, formative (educational) experiment, psychological (psychodiagnostic) conversation, etc.

Experimental psychological research can be carried out not only with the help of special devices, tables, forms, but also in the form of a psychological examination using questionnaires, questionnaires, tests, self-reports, and expert assessments. Therefore, the term “equipment” for experimental psychological research means both appropriate special equipment, a stopwatch and specially designed tables, forms, and questionnaires.

Accordingly, a distinction is made between instrumental and blank experimental psychological studies, which can be individual or group.

The person conducting the psychological experiment is called the researcher (experimenter), the person (or persons) who is the object of the study is called the subject(s).

Along with these positive aspects, the psychological experiment also has a number of features that should be taken into account when applying it. Not all mental phenomena are easy to activate and study in a laboratory setting. Thus, volitional characteristics, most character traits, interests and orientation of a person are less amenable to laboratory study than others.

The results of a psychological experiment largely depend on the attitude of the subject towards it. With all the skill of the experimenter, it is not always possible to induce the subject to demonstrate all his abilities in the experiment and treat the study with sufficient interest. Therefore, when designing and conducting an experiment, a psychologist must take all measures to make it meaningful for the subject and stimulate the subject to perform the tasks in the best possible way.

The researcher must always remember that based on the results of one psychological experiment it is impossible to reasonably judge any personality trait, since in addition to the one being studied, the results of the experiment are always influenced by other mental characteristics. Consequently, conclusions about the development of a certain mental feature must be made on the basis of a number of different experiments, each of which activates the side of the psyche being studied ( mental phenomenon), while comparing the results of experiments with data obtained through other methods: conversation, observation, natural (field) experiment, psychodiagnostic examination.

A significant drawback of a laboratory psychological experiment is that with a change in the type of activity, the psychological structure studied mental processes. For example, the attention that is studied in the laboratory and the attention of students in the classroom or a worker in the process of his activity are far from identical mental phenomena.

It is always necessary to remember that the results of a psychological experiment depend on the education, cultural development, special knowledge, life and professional experience of the subject. This circumstance once again confirms that a simplified, mechanical interpretation of the materials obtained as a result of an experiment is unacceptable (especially with methods aimed at studying intelligence, thinking, and cognitive characteristics).

When conducting a psychological experiment, it is necessary to take into account a number of general provisions.

You can't study everything at once. You always need to know which psychological qualities are studied most closely in a given study and which are the background. Along with this, there is not a single method of experimental psychological research that would not mobilize and significantly reveal larger number mental qualities of a person, although to varying degrees and in different relationships with each other. Therefore, one must be able to interpret its results and compare them with data from other methods. This is achieved based on knowledge general principles psychology and gaining experience in using various methods.

The obtained quantitative indicators should be supplemented and clarified by observation and conversation data. Without observation during the experiment and conversation, the indicators may be misinterpreted.

An assessment of a particular mental quality based on a one-time experiment may be erroneous. Conclusions based on a one-time experiment that showed or revealed negative, low qualities are especially dangerous.

Each experimenter, having examined a number of individuals, in the process of gaining experience must learn to select the necessary methods, analyze and compare both observations during the experiment and the quantitative indicators of each method, and most importantly, establish their relationships with each other and with the data of other observations

Conducting experimental psychological research to identify the characteristics of age dynamics requires the psychologist to have a good knowledge of the characteristics and patterns of mental development of subjects of a given age.

Experimental psychological research (experiments, psychodiagnostic examinations) must be carried out in favorable conditions. The subjects must be in an alert state, well-slept, and rested. The most favorable time for research is the morning, about two hours after getting up, but before any heavy loads; If it turns out that the subject did not sleep well, then it is better to postpone the experiment.

The subject's attention must be completely absorbed in completing the task; if, for example, it turns out that at the time of the study he is intensely worried about his educational, personal failures or troubles, then the experiment should also be postponed to another time.

It is very important to create in the subject a serious, but fairly calm attitude towards the experiment. It is necessary to avoid everything that could worry the subject, cause him excessive emotional arousal, which negatively affects the course of the experiment. Of course, this condition can be systematically violated if the subject of study is the degree emotional excitability, the ability to control oneself and other features of the emotional-volitional sphere.

The subject (even for the purpose of career guidance or selection) should not have the opinion that his fate “depends” on the results of the experiment. At the same time, it is necessary that he understands that he must work with full attention, that the experiments being carried out help to evaluate the characteristics of his abilities.

The more the conditions of the experiment (examination) differ, the more difficult it is to judge to what extent the test subject’s results depend on his characteristics being studied, and to what extent on the influence of conditions and side factors.

6. Organization and conduct of reproducing research

Identification of cola drinks

We conducted this study following Frederick J. Thuman.

The purpose of our research is to conduct an exact repetition of the experiment of predecessors to determine the validity, reliability, and objectivity of the results obtained.

1. Analyze the literature.

2. Gain experience of independent educational research using the experimental method.

3. Master the cultural form of the experimental report.

The purpose of Frederick J. Thuman's study was to determine whether the relative inability of subjects to correctly identify brands of beverages, found in previous studies, was due to any methodological flaws in the design of the experiment itself. The main changes in the experimental design are as follows: information was obtained from the subjects about their level of consumption of cola drinks; subjects were told in advance which drinks they would taste and identify; The method of paired comparisons was used when presenting drink samples.

Experiment as a research method

When studying phenomena, it is possible to use several types of methods: active (experiments) and passive (observation, archival and biographical research).

The experimental method implies the active influence or induction of the process under study, the presence of the main and control (as similar as possible to the main, but not influenced) experimental groups. According to their semantic purpose, they distinguish between a research experiment (when the presence of a relationship between the selected parameters is unknown) and a confirmatory experiment (when the relationship between the variables is established, but it is necessary to identify the nature of this relationship). To construct a practical study, it is necessary to initially formulate definitions and the problem being studied, formulate hypotheses, and then test them. The resulting results are processed and interpreted using mathematical statistics methods that take into account the characteristics of the variables and samples of subjects.

Distinctive features experimental study are: artificial independent organization of conditions for the activation or appearance of a certain psychological fact being studied, the ability to change conditions and eliminate some of the influencing factors.

The entire construction of experimental conditions comes down to determining the interaction of variables: dependent, independent and secondary. An independent variable is understood as a condition or phenomenon that can be varied or changed by the experimenter (selected time of day, proposed task) in order to trace its further influence on the dependent variable (words or actions of the subject in response to the stimulus), i.e. parameters of another phenomenon. When defining variables, it is important to identify and specify them so that they can be recorded and analyzed.

In addition to the qualities of specificity and recordability, there must be consistency and reliability, i.e. the tendency to maintain the stability of the indicators of its registration and the preservation of the obtained indicators only under conditions that repeat the experimental ones regarding the chosen hypothesis. Secondary variables are all factors that indirectly affect the results or course of the experiment, be it lighting or the level of alertness of the subject.

The experimental method has a number of advantages, including the repeatability of the phenomenon being studied, the ability to influence the results by changing variables, and the ability to choose the beginning of the experiment. This is the only method that gives the most reliable results. Among the reasons for criticism of this method is the instability, spontaneity and uniqueness of the psyche, as well as subject-subject relationships, which by their presence do not coincide with scientific rules. Another negative characteristic of the method is that the conditions only partially reproduce reality, and accordingly, confirmation and one hundred percent reproduction of those obtained in laboratory conditions results in reality are not possible.

Types of experiments

There is no unambiguous classification of experiments, since the concept consists of many characteristics, based on the choice of which further differentiation is made.

At the stages of hypothesis formulation, when methods and samples have not yet been determined, it is worth conducting a thought experiment, where, taking into account theoretical premises, scientists conduct an imaginary study seeking to detect contradictions within the theory used, the incomparability of concepts and postulates. In a thought experiment, it is not the phenomena themselves that are studied from the practical side, but the available theoretical information about them. The construction of a real experiment involves systematic manipulation of variables, their correction and choice in reality.

A laboratory experiment involves the artificial recreation of special conditions that organize the necessary environment, in the presence of equipment and instructions that determine the actions of the subject; the subjects themselves are aware of their participation in the method, but the hypothesis can be hidden from them in order to obtain independent results. With this formulation, maximum control of variables is possible, but the data obtained are difficult to compare with real life.

A natural (field) or quasi-experiment occurs when the research is conducted directly in a group where complete adjustment of the necessary indicators is not possible, under conditions natural for the selected social community. It is used to study the mutual influence of variables in real life conditions; it occurs in several stages: analysis of the behavior or feedback of the subject, recording the observations obtained, analyzing the results, compiling the resulting characteristics of the subject.

In psychological research activities the use of a establishing and formative experiment in one study is observed. The ascertainer determines the presence of a phenomenon or function, while the formulator analyzes changes in these indicators after the training stage or other influence on the factors selected by the hypothesis.

When several hypotheses are formulated, a critical experiment is used to confirm the truth of one of the put forward versions, while the rest are considered refuted (implementation requires a high degree of development of the theoretical basis, as well as rather complex planning of the formulation itself).

Conducting an experiment is important when testing test hypotheses and choosing a further course of research. This testing method is called piloting, it is carried out by connecting a smaller sample than in a full experiment, with less attention to the analysis of the details of the results, and seeks to identify only general trends and patterns.

Experiments are also distinguished by the amount of information available to the subject about the research conditions themselves. There are experiments where the subject has complete information about the progress of the study, those where some information is hidden, and those where the subject does not know about the experiment being conducted.

Based on the results obtained, a distinction is made between group (data obtained are characteristic and relevant for describing phenomena inherent in a particular group) and individual (data describing a specific person) experiments.

Psychological experiments

An experiment in psychology has a distinctive feature from the peculiarities of its conduct in other sciences, since the object of research has its own subjectivity, which can contribute a certain percentage of influence both to the course of the study and to the results of the study. The main task set before a psychological experiment is to bring to the visible surface the processes hidden within the psyche. Reliable transmission of such information requires full control of the maximum number of variables.

The concept of experiment in psychology, in addition to the research sphere, is used in psychotherapeutic practice, when problems that are relevant to the individual are artificially posed in order to deepen experiences or study the internal state.

The first steps on the path of experimental activity are to establish certain relationships with subjects and determine the characteristics of the sample. Next, subjects receive instructions for execution, containing a description of the chronological order of the actions performed, presented in as much detail and in a concise form as possible.

Stages of conducting a psychological experiment:

Statement of the problem and deriving a hypothesis;

Analysis of literary and theoretical data on the selected topic;

Choosing an experimental tool that allows you to both control the dependent variable and record changes in the independent one;

Formation of a relevant sample and groups of subjects;

Conducting experimental experiments or diagnostics;

Collection and statistical processing of data;

Research results, drawing conclusions.

Conducting psychological experiments attracts the attention of society much more often than experimentation in other areas, since it affects not only scientific concepts, but also the ethical side of the issue, because when setting conditions and observations, the experimenter directly intervenes and influences the life of the subject. There are several world-famous experiments concerning the characteristics of human behavioral determinants, some of which are recognized as inhumane.

The Hawthorne experiment arose from a decrease in the productivity of workers at one enterprise, after which diagnostic methods were undertaken to identify the causes. The results of the study showed that productivity depends on the position occupied social status and the role of a person, and those workers who were included in the group of subjects began to work better only from the awareness of the fact of participation in the experiment and the fact that the attention of the employer and researchers was directed to them.

Milgram's experiment was aimed at establishing the amount of pain that a person can inflict on others, completely innocent, if it is their duty to do so. Several people took part - the subject himself, the boss, who gave him the order in case of an error to send a shock to the offender electric current and directly the one to whom the punishment was intended (this role was played by the actor). This experiment revealed that people are capable of inflicting significant physical harm on other innocent people out of a sense of the need to obey or disobey authority figures, even when confronted with their inner beliefs.

Ringelman's experiment tested how productivity levels varied depending on the number of people involved in a task. It turned out that what more people participates in the performance of work, the lower the productivity of each individual and the group as a whole. This gives grounds to assert that with conscious individual responsibility there is a desire to give maximum effort, whereas with group work it can be transferred to someone else.

The “monstrous” experiment, which its authors successfully hid for some time for fear of punishment, was aimed at studying the power of suggestion. During it, two groups of children from a boarding school were told about their skills: the first group was praised, and the second was constantly criticized, pointing out shortcomings in their speech. Subsequently, children from the second group, who had not previously encountered speech difficulties, began to develop speech defects, some of which persisted until the end of their lives.

There are many other experiments where moral issues were not taken into account by the authors, and despite the supposed scientific value and discoveries, they are not admired.

An experiment in psychology is intended to study mental characteristics to improve one’s life, optimize work and combat fears, and therefore the primary requirement for the development of research methods is their ethics, because the results of experimental experiments can cause irreversible changes that alter a person’s subsequent life.

Speaker of the Medical and Psychological Center "PsychoMed"

Man and the characteristics of his personality have been the object of interest and study of the great minds of mankind for centuries. And from the very beginning of the development of psychological science to the present day, people have been able to develop and significantly improve their skills in this difficult but exciting matter. Therefore, now, to obtain reliable data in the study of characteristics and personality, people use a large number of different methods and research methods in psychology. And one of the methods that has gained the greatest popularity and has proven itself from the most practical side is a psychological experiment.

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

What is an experiment?

Experiment in psychology- this is a certain experiment that is carried out in special conditions with the aim of obtaining psychological data through the intervention of the researcher in the process of the subject’s activity. Both a specialist scientist and a simple layman can act as a researcher during an experiment.

The main characteristics and features of the experiment are:

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

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

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

The most famous psychological experiments

Hawthorne experiment

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

After much research, scientists came to the conclusion that labor productivity is influenced by social conditions and, mainly, by the emergence of workers’ interest in the work process, as a consequence of their awareness of their participation in the experiment. The mere fact that workers are allocated to a separate group and special attention from scientists and managers is shown to them already affects the effectiveness of workers. By the way, during the Hawthorne experiment, the Hawthorne effect was discovered, and the experiment itself increased the authority of psychological research as scientific methods.

Knowing about the results of the Hawthorne experiment, as well as the effect, we can apply this knowledge in practice, namely, have a positive impact on our activities and the activities of other people. Parents can improve their children's development, teachers can improve student achievement, and employers can improve their employees' performance and productivity. To do this, you can try to announce that some kind of experiment will be taking place, and the people to whom you are announcing this are an important component of it. For the same purpose, you can apply the introduction of any innovations. But you can learn more about this here.

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

Milgram experiment

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

Initially, the Milgram experiment was conducted to find out how the inhabitants of Germany could take part in the destruction of huge numbers of people during the Nazi terror. As a result, the experiment clearly demonstrated the inability of people (in this case, “teachers”) to resist a boss (researcher) who ordered the “work” to continue, despite the fact that the “student” was suffering. As a result of the experiment, it was revealed that the need to submit to authority is deeply rooted in the human mind, even if internal conflict and moral suffering. Milgram himself noted that under the pressure of authority, adequate adults are capable of going very far.

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

You can familiarize yourself with the details of Milgram's experiment.

Stanford prison experiment

The Stanford Prison Experiment was conducted by American psychologist Philip Zimbardo in 1971 at Stanford. It examined a person’s reaction to the conditions of imprisonment, restriction of freedom and the influence of an imposed social role on his behavior. Funding was provided by the US Navy in order to explain the causes of conflicts in Marine Corps and Navy correctional facilities. Men were selected for the experiment, some of whom became “prisoners”, and the other part became “guards”.

The “guards” and “prisoners” very quickly got used to their roles, and sometimes very dangerous situations arose in the makeshift prison. A third of the “guards” showed sadistic tendencies, and the “prisoners” received severe moral trauma. The experiment, designed to last two weeks, was stopped after just six days, because... it started to get out of control. The Stanford prison experiment is often compared to the Milgram experiment described above.

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

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

Ringelmann experiment

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

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

We can conclude that when we rely only on our own strengths, we make maximum efforts to achieve results, and when we work in a group, we often rely on someone else. The problem lies in the passivity of actions, and this passivity is more social than physical. Solitary work gives us the reflex to achieve the maximum from ourselves, but in group work the result is not so significant. Therefore, if you need to do something very important, then it is best to rely only on yourself and not count on the help of other people, because then you will give it your all and achieve your goal, and what is important to other people is not so important to you.

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

Experiment “Me and Others”

“Me and Others” is a 1971 Soviet popular science film that features filming of several psychological experiments, the progress of which is commented on by a narrator. The experiments in the film reflect the influence of the opinions of others on a person and his ability to think out what he was unable to remember. All experiments were prepared and conducted by psychologist Valeria Mukhina.

Experiments shown in the film:

“Assault”: subjects must describe the details of an impromptu attack and recall the characteristics of the attackers.
“Scientist or killer”: subjects are shown a portrait of the same person, having previously imagined him as a scientist or a killer. Participants must create a psychological portrait of this person.
“Both white”: black and white pyramids are placed on the table in front of the child participants. Three of the children say that both pyramids are white, testing the fourth for suggestibility. The results of the experiment are very interesting. Later, this experiment was carried out with the participation of adults.
“Sweet salty porridge”: three quarters of the porridge in the plate is sweet, and one quarter is salty. Three children are given porridge and they say it is sweet. The fourth is given a salty “plot”. Task: check what a child who has tried the salty “plot” will name the porridge when the other three say it is sweet, thereby checking the importance of public opinion.
“Portraits”: participants are shown 5 portraits and asked to find out if there are two photos of the same person among them. At the same time, all participants, except one who came later, must say that two different photos are photos of the same person. The essence of the experiment is also to find out how the opinion of the majority influences the opinion of one.
“Shooting Range”: in front of the student there are two targets. If he shoots on the left, then a ruble will fall out, which he can take for himself, if on the right, then the ruble will go to the needs of the class. More hit marks were initially made on the left target. You need to find out which target the student will shoot at if he sees that many of his comrades were shooting at the left target.

The vast majority of the results from the experiments in the film showed that people (children and adults alike) care deeply about what others say and their opinions. It’s the same in life: very often we give up our beliefs and opinions when we see that the opinions of others do not coincide with our own. That is, we can say that we are losing ourselves among the others. For this reason, many people do not achieve their goals, betray their dreams, and follow the lead of the public. You need to be able to maintain your individuality in any conditions and always think only with your own head. After all, first of all, it will serve you well.

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

"Monstrous" experiment

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

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

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

More detailed information there is information about the “monstrous” experiment.

Project "Aversia"

This terrible project was carried out from 1970 to 1989 in the South African army under the “leadership” of Colonel Aubrey Levin. This was a secret program aimed at clearing the ranks of the South African army of persons of non-traditional sexual orientation. According to official data, about 1,000 people became “participants” in the experiment, although the exact number of victims is unknown. To achieve a “good” goal, scientists used a variety of means: from drugs and electroshock therapy to chemical castration and sex change operations.

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

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

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

Landis experiments

Landis's experiments are also called "Spontaneous Facial Expressions and Compliance." A series of these experiments was conducted by psychologist Carini Landis in Minnesota in 1924. The purpose of the experiment was to identify general patterns of work of facial muscle groups that are responsible for the expression of emotions, as well as to search for facial expressions characteristic of these emotions. The participants in the experiments were Landis' students.

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

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

You can learn more about Landis' experiments here.

Little Albert

An experiment called “Little Albert” or “Little Albert” was conducted in New York in 1920 by psychologist John Watson, who, by the way, is the founder of behaviorism, a special direction in psychology. The experiment was carried out in order to find out how fear is formed for objects that previously did not cause any fear.

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

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

You can learn more about the Little Albert experiment here.

Acquired (learned) helplessness

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

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

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

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

Boy raised like a girl

This experiment is one of the most inhumane in history. It, so to speak, was held from 1965 to 2004 in Baltimore (USA). In 1965, a boy named Bruce Reimer was born there, whose penis was damaged by doctors during a circumcision procedure. The parents, not knowing what to do, turned to psychologist John Money and he “recommended” that they simply change the gender of the boy and raise him as a girl. The parents followed the “advice”, gave permission for gender reassignment surgery and began raising Bruce as Brenda. In fact, Dr. Money has long wanted to conduct an experiment to prove that gender is determined by upbringing and not by nature. The boy Bruce became his test subject.

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

What can be said about this “experiment” in relation to our everyday life? Probably, only that a person is born with a certain set of qualities and predispositions determined genetic information. Fortunately, not many people try to make daughters out of their sons or vice versa. But, nevertheless, when raising their child, some parents do not seem to want to notice the characteristics of their child’s character and his developing personality. They want to “sculpt” the child, as if from plasticine - to make him the way they themselves want him to be, without taking into account his individuality. And this is unfortunate, because... It is because of this that many people in adulthood feel unfulfilled, frailty and meaninglessness of life, and do not receive pleasure from life. The small is confirmed in the big, and any influence we have on our children will be reflected in their future life. Therefore, you should be more attentive to your children and understand that every person, even the smallest one, has his own path and we must try with all our might to help him find it.

And some details of the life of David Reimer himself can be found at this link.

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