Method of experiment in psychology. Types of experiment in psychology

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

SEI HPE "UDMURT STATE UNIVERSITY"

INSTITUTE OF PEDAGOGY, PSYCHOLOGY AND SOCIAL TECHNOLOGIES

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WORK

Topic: Experiment as a research method.

Psychological experiment.

Performed by student gr. З-350500-51

Vasilyeva T.A.

Checked by the teacher _____

Ishmuratov A.V.

«_____»___________________

Grade __________________

Izhevsk 2011

1. Experiment. Types of experiment………………………………………3

2. Psychological experiment as a research method……….……..6

3. The main task of the experimental study.

Validity. Classification…………………………………………………9

4. Interaction between the experimenter and the subject…………..12

5. References……………………………………………………….15

1. EXPERIMENT. TYPES OF EXPERIMENT.

Experiment (from lat. experimentum - test, experience) in the scientific method - a method of studying a certain phenomenon under controlled conditions. It differs from observation by active interaction with the object under study. Usually, an experiment is carried out as part of a scientific study and serves to test a hypothesis, to establish causal relationships between phenomena. Experiment is the cornerstone of the empirical approach to knowledge. Popper's criterion puts forward the possibility of setting up an experiment as the main difference between a scientific theory and a pseudoscientific one.

There are several experimental models. Flawless experiment - a model of experiment that is not feasible in practice, used by experimental psychologists as a standard. This term was introduced into experimental psychology by Robert Gottsdanker, the author of the well-known book Fundamentals of Psychological Experiment, who believed that the use of such a model for comparison would lead to a more effective improvement of experimental methods and the identification of possible errors in planning and conducting a psychological experiment.

Random experiment (random test, random experience) is a mathematical model of a corresponding real experiment, the result of which cannot be accurately predicted. The mathematical model must meet the requirements: it must be adequate and adequately describe the experiment; the totality of the set of observed results within the framework of the mathematical model under consideration should be determined with strictly defined fixed initial data described within the framework of the mathematical model; there should be a fundamental possibility of carrying out an experiment with a random outcome an arbitrarily number of times with unchanged input data, (where is the number of experiments performed); the requirement must be proved or the hypothesis of the stochastic stability of the relative frequency for any observed result, defined within the framework of the mathematical model, must be accepted a priori.

The experiment is not always implemented as intended, so a mathematical equation was invented for the relative frequency of experiment implementations:

Let there be some real experiment and let A denote the result observed within the framework of this experiment. Let there be n experiments in which the result A can be realized or not. And let k be the number of realizations of the observed result A in n trials, assuming that the trials performed are independent.

Types of experiments.

A physical experiment is a way of understanding nature, which consists in studying natural phenomena in specially created conditions. Unlike theoretical physics, which explores the mathematical models of nature, a physical experiment is designed to explore nature itself.

A computer (numerical) experiment is an experiment on a mathematical model of an object of study on a computer, which consists in the fact that, according to some parameters of the model, its other parameters are calculated and, on this basis, conclusions are drawn about the properties of the object described by the mathematical model. This type of experiment can only be conditionally attributed to an experiment, because it does not reflect natural phenomena, but is only a numerical implementation of a mathematical model created by a person. Indeed, in case of incorrectness in mat. model - its numerical solution may be strictly divergent from the physical experiment.

A thought experiment in philosophy, physics and some other fields of knowledge is a type of cognitive activity in which the structure of a real experiment is reproduced in the imagination. As a rule, a thought experiment is carried out within the framework of a certain model (theory) to check its consistency. When conducting a thought experiment, contradictions in the internal postulates of the model or their incompatibility with external (in relation to this model) principles that are considered unconditionally true (for example, with the law of conservation of energy, the principle of causality, etc.) may be revealed.

A critical experiment is an experiment whose outcome unambiguously determines whether a particular theory or hypothesis is correct. This experiment should give a predicted result that cannot be deduced from other, generally accepted hypotheses and theories.

2. PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPERIMENT AS A RESEARCH METHOD.

Let us take as an example a psychological experiment and consider it in more detail as a research method.

A psychological experiment is an experiment conducted under special conditions to obtain new scientific knowledge through the targeted intervention of a researcher in the life of the subject.

Various authors interpret the concept of "psychological experiment" ambiguously, often under the experiment in psychology is considered a complex of different independent empirical methods (the actual experiment, observation, questioning, testing). However, traditionally in experimental psychology, the experiment is considered an independent method.

In psychology, experimental research has its own specifics, which makes it possible to consider it separately from research in other sciences. The specificity of a psychological experiment lies in the fact that: the psyche as a construct cannot be objectively observed and one can learn about its activity only based on its manifestations, for example, in the form of a certain behavior.

When studying mental processes, it is considered impossible to single out any one of them, and the impact always occurs on the psyche as a whole (or, from a modern point of view, on the body as a single indivisible system).

In experiments with humans (as well as some higher animals, such as primates), there is an active interaction between the experimenter and the subject.

This interaction, among other things, makes it necessary for the subject to have instructions (which, obviously, is not typical for natural science experiments).

Robert Woodworth, who published his classic textbook on experimental psychology (Experimental psychology, 1938), defined an experiment as an ordered study in which the researcher directly changes some factor (or factors), keeps the others unchanged, and observes the results of systematic changes. . He considered the distinctive feature of the experimental method to be the control of the experimental factor, or, in Woodworth's terminology, the "independent variable", and tracking its influence on the observed effect, or "dependent variable". The goal of the experimenter is to keep all conditions constant except for one, the independent variable.

In a simplified example, the independent variable can be considered as a relevant stimulus (St(r)), the strength of which is varied by the experimenter, while the dependent variable is the reaction (R) of the subject, his psyche (P) to the impact of this relevant stimulus. Schematically, this can be expressed as follows:

St(r) - relevant stimuli, R - reaction of the subject, P - personality of the subject, his psyche

However, as a rule, it is the desired stability of all conditions, except for the independent variable, that is unattainable in a psychological experiment, since in addition to these two variables, there are almost always additional variables, systematic irrelevant stimuli (St(1)) and random stimuli (St(2) ), leading to systematic and random errors, respectively. Thus, the final schematic representation of the experimental process looks like this:

Therefore, three types of variables can be distinguished in the experiment:

1. Independent variable

2. Dependent variable

3.Additional variables (or external variables)

So, the experimenter is trying to establish a functional relationship between the dependent and independent variable, which is expressed in the function R=f(St(r)), while trying to take into account the systematic error that arose as a result of exposure to irrelevant stimuli (examples of systematic error include the phases of the moon, the time of day and etc.). To reduce the likelihood of the impact of random errors on the result, the researcher seeks to conduct a series of experiments (an example of a random error could be, for example, fatigue or a mote that got into the eye of the test subject).

3. THE MAIN OBJECTIVE OF THE EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION. VALIDITY. CLASSIFICATION.

The general task of psychological experiments is to establish the presence of a relationship R=f(S, P) and, if possible, the type of function f (there are various types of relationships - causal, functional, correlation, etc.). In this case, R is the subject's reaction, S is the situation, and P is the subject's personality, psyche, or "internal processes". That is, roughly speaking, since it is impossible to “see” mental processes, in a psychological experiment, based on the reaction of subjects to stimulation regulated by the experimenter, some conclusion is made about the psyche, mental processes or personality of the subject.

Validity in a psychological experiment

As in natural science experiments, so in psychological experiments, the concept of validity is considered a cornerstone: if the experiment is valid, scientists can have some confidence that they measured exactly what they wanted to measure. A lot of measures are taken in order to respect all kinds of validity. However, it is impossible to be absolutely sure that in some, even the most thoughtful, study, all the validity criteria can be completely met. A completely flawless experiment is unattainable.

Classifications of experiments

Depending on the method of conducting, there are mainly three types of experiments:

· Laboratory experiment

Field or natural experiment

Formative, or psychological and pedagogical experiment. The introduction of this species into this classification violates the rules for constructing a classification. Firstly, each object (in this case, the study) can be attributed to only one type. However, the formative experiment can be both laboratory and natural. For example, I. P. Pavlov's experiments on the development of conditioned reflexes in dogs are a laboratory formative experiment, and experiments within the framework of the theory of developmental education by Elkonin and Davydov are mainly field formative experiments. Secondly, the classification should have only one basis, that is, the species are divided according to one attribute. However, according to such a feature as the method of conducting or the conditions for conducting, only laboratory and field experiments can be distinguished, and the formative experiment is distinguished by another feature.

A laboratory experiment is distinguished depending on the conditions of the conduct - the conditions are specially organized by the experimenter. The main objective is to ensure high internal validity. The allocation of a single independent variable is characteristic. The main way to control external variables is elimination (elimination). External validity is lower than in the field experiment.

Field, or natural experiment - the experiment is carried out in conditions that the experimenter does not control. The main task is to ensure high external validity. The selection of a complex independent variable is characteristic. The main ways to control external variables are randomization (the levels of external variables in the study correspond exactly to the levels of these variables in life, that is, outside the study) and constancy (make the level of the variable the same for all participants). Internal validity is generally lower than in laboratory experiments.

· The ascertaining experiment is singled out depending on the result of the influence - the experimenter does not change the properties of the participant irreversibly, does not form new properties in him and does not develop those that already exist.

Formative experiment - the experimenter changes the participant irreversibly, forms in him such properties that did not exist before or develops those that already existed.

Depending on the level of awareness, experiments can also be divided into those

in which the subject is given complete information about the goals and objectives of the study;

in which, for the purposes of the experiment, some information about him from the subject is withheld or distorted (for example, when it is necessary that the subject does not know about the true hypothesis of the study, he may be told a false one);

in which the subject is unaware of the purpose of the experiment or even the very fact of the experiment (for example, experiments involving children).

Not a single experiment in any science is able to withstand the criticism of the supporters of the "absolute" accuracy of scientific conclusions. However, as a standard of perfection, Robert Gottsdanker introduced the concept of "perfect experiment" into experimental psychology - an unattainable ideal of an experiment that fully satisfies the three criteria (ideality, infinity, full compliance), which researchers should strive to approach.

6. INTERACTION BETWEEN EXPERIMENT AND SUBJECT.

The problem of organizing interaction between the experimenter and the subject is considered one of the main problems generated by the specifics of psychological science. The instruction is considered as the most common means of direct communication between the experimenter and the subject.

The instruction to the subject in a psychological experiment is given in order to increase the likelihood that the subject has adequately understood the requirements of the experimenter, so it gives clear information on how the subject should behave, what he is asked to do. For all subjects within the same experiment, the same (or equivalent) text with the same requirements is given. However, due to the individuality of each subject, in experiments the psychologist is faced with the task of ensuring an adequate understanding of the instruction by the person. Examples of differences between subjects that determine the appropriateness of an individual approach:

some subjects are nervous, while others remain cool, and so on.

Requirements for most instructions:

The instruction should explain the purpose and significance of the study;

It must clearly state the content, course and details of the experience;

It should be detailed and at the same time concise enough.

Another task facing the researcher is the formation of a sample. The researcher first of all needs to determine its volume (number of subjects) and composition, while the sample must be representative, that is, the researcher must be able to extend the conclusions drawn from the results of the study of this sample to the entire population from which this sample was collected. For these purposes, there are various strategies for selecting samples and forming groups of subjects. Very often, for simple (one-factor) experiments, two groups are formed - control and experimental. In some situations, it can be quite difficult to select a group of subjects without creating a selection bias.

The general model for conducting a psychological experiment meets the requirements of the scientific method. When conducting a holistic experimental study, the following stages are distinguished:

1. Primary statement of the problem

Statement of a psychological hypothesis

2. Work with scientific literature

Search for definitions of basic concepts

Compilation of a bibliography on the subject of the study

3. Clarification of the hypothesis and definition of variables

Definition of experimental hypothesis

4. Choice of an experimental tool that allows:

Manage independent variable

5.Planning a pilot study

Highlighting Additional Variables

Choosing an Experimental Plan

6. Formation of a sample and distribution of subjects into groups in accordance with the adopted plan

7. Conducting an experiment

Experiment preparation

Instructing and motivating subjects

Actually experimentation

8. Primary data processing

Tabulation

Information Form Transformation

Data validation

9.Statistical processing

Choice of statistical processing methods

Converting an Experimental Hypothesis to a Statistical Hypothesis

Carrying out statistical processing

10. Interpretation of results and conclusions

11.Fixation of research in a scientific report, article, monograph, letter to the editor of a scientific journal

[edit] Advantages of experiment as a research method The following main advantages that experiment has as a research method can be distinguished:

1. Ability to choose the start time of the event

2. Repeatability of the event under study

3. Changeability of results through conscious manipulation of independent variables.

Criticism of the experimental method

Supporters of the unacceptability of the experimental method in psychology rely on the following provisions:

The subject-subject relationship violates scientific rules

The psyche has the property of spontaneity

The mind is too fickle

The mind is too unique

The psyche is too complex an object of study

LITERATURE

1. Zarochentsev K. D., Khudyakov A. I. Experimental psychology: textbook. - M.: Prospect Publishing House, 2005. ISBN 5-98032-770-3

2. Research in psychology: methods and planning / J. Goodwin. - 3rd ed. - St. Petersburg: Peter, 2004. ISBN 5-94723-290-1

4. Nikandrov VV Observation and experiment in psychology. St. Petersburg: Rech, 2002 ISBN 5-9268-0141-9

5. Solso R. L., Johnson H. H., Beal M. K. Experimental psychology: a practical course. - St. Petersburg: prime-EVROZNAK, 2001.

6. Gottsdanker, Robert; "Fundamentals of psychological experiment"; Publishing house: M.: MSU, 1982;

7. D. Campbell. Models of experiments in social psychology and applied research. M., Progress 1980.

About psychology through purposeful intervention of the researcher in the life of the subject.

Various authors interpret the concept of "psychological experiment" ambiguously, often under the experiment in psychology, a complex of different independent empirical methods is considered ( actual experiment, observation, questioning, testing). However, traditionally in experimental psychology, the experiment is considered an independent method.

Psychological experiment (as part of psychological counseling)- a specially created situation designed for a more holistic (in various modalities) experience by the client of his own experience.

The specifics of a psychological experiment

In psychology, experimental research has its own specifics, which makes it possible to consider it separately from research in other sciences. The specifics of the psychological experiment is that:

The psyche as a construct cannot be objectively observed and one can learn about its activity only based on its manifestations, for example, in the form of a certain behavior.
When studying mental processes, it is considered impossible to single out any one of them, and the impact always occurs on the psyche as a whole (or, from a modern point of view, on the body as a single indivisible system).
In experiments with humans (as well as some higher animals, such as primates), there is an active interaction between the experimenter and the subject.
This interaction, among other things, makes it necessary for the subject to have instructions (which, obviously, is not typical for natural science experiments).

General information

In a simplified example, the independent variable can be considered as a relevant stimulus (St(r)), the strength of which is varied by the experimenter, while the dependent variable is the reaction ( R) of the subject, his psyche ( P) on the impact of that relevant stimulus.

However, as a rule, it is precisely the desired stability of all conditions, except for the independent variable, that is unattainable in a psychological experiment, since almost always, in addition to these two variables, there are also additional variables, systematic irrelevant incentives (St(1)) and random stimuli ( St(2)), leading to systematic and random errors, respectively. Thus, the final schematic representation of the experimental process looks like this:

Therefore, three types of variables can be distinguished in the experiment:

Additional variables (or external variables)

So, the experimenter is trying to establish a functional relationship between the dependent and independent variable, which is expressed in the function R=f( St(r)), while trying to take into account the systematic error that arose as a result of exposure to irrelevant stimuli (examples of a systematic error include the phases of the moon, time of day, etc.). To reduce the likelihood of the impact of random errors on the result, the researcher seeks to conduct a series of experiments (an example of a random error could be, for example, fatigue or a mote that got into the eye of the test subject).

The main task of the experimental study

The general task of psychological experiments is to establish the existence of a connection R=f( S, P) and, if possible, the form of the function f (there are various types of relationships - causal, functional, correlation, etc.). In this case, R- test subject's response S- the situation and P- the personality of the subject, the psyche, or "internal processes". That is, roughly speaking, since it is impossible to “see” mental processes, in a psychological experiment, based on the reaction of subjects to stimulation regulated by the experimenter, some conclusion is made about the psyche, mental processes or personality of the subject.

Stages of the experiment. Each experiment can be divided into the following stages. The first stage is the formulation of the problem and goal, as well as the construction of an experiment plan. The plan of the experiment should be built taking into account the accumulated knowledge and reflect the relevance of the problem. The second stage is the actual process of active influence on the surrounding world, as a result of which objective scientific facts are accumulated. Properly selected experimental technique contributes to obtaining these facts to a large extent. As a rule, the experimental method is formed on the basis of those difficulties that must be eliminated in order to solve the problems posed in the experiment. A technique developed for one experiment may be suitable for other experiments, that is, acquire universal significance.

Validity in a psychological experiment

As in natural science experiments, so in psychological experiments, the concept of validity is considered the cornerstone: if the experiment is valid, scientists can have some confidence that they measured exactly what they wanted to measure. A lot of measures are taken in order to respect all kinds of validity. However, it is impossible to be absolutely sure that in some, even the most thoughtful, study, all the validity criteria can be completely met. A completely flawless experiment is unattainable.

Classifications of experiments

Depending on the method of

There are mainly three types of experiments:

Formative or psychological-pedagogical experiment The introduction of this species into this classification violates the rules for constructing a classification. Firstly, each object (in this case, the study) can be attributed to only one type. However, the formative experiment can be both laboratory and natural. For example, I. P. Pavlov's experiments on the development of conditioned reflexes in dogs are a laboratory formative experiment, and experiments within the framework of the theory of developmental education by Elkonin and Davydov are mainly field formative experiments. Secondly, the classification should have only one basis, that is, the species are divided according to one attribute. However, according to such a feature as the method of conducting or the conditions for conducting, only laboratory and field experiments can be distinguished, and the formative experiment is distinguished by another feature.

Depending on the conditions for conducting, allocate

Laboratory experiment - the conditions are specially organized by the experimenter. The main objective is to ensure high internal validity. The allocation of a single independent variable is characteristic. The main way to control external variables is elimination (elimination). External validity is lower than in the field experiment.
Field, or natural experiment - the experiment is carried out in conditions that the experimenter does not control. The main task is to ensure high external validity. The selection of a complex independent variable is characteristic. The main ways to control external variables are randomization (the levels of external variables in the study correspond exactly to the levels of these variables in life, that is, outside the study) and constancy (make the level of the variable the same for all participants). Internal validity is generally lower than in laboratory experiments.

Depending on the result of the impact,

Ascertaining experiment - the experimenter does not irreversibly change the participant's properties, does not form new properties in him and does not develop those that already exist.

Formative experiment - the experimenter changes the participant irreversibly, forms in him such properties that did not exist before or develops those that already existed.

Depending on the stage of research

Pilot study (so-called draft, pilot study)
The actual experiment

depending on the level of awareness

Depending on the level of awareness, experiments can also be divided into

those in which the subject is given complete information about the goals and objectives of the study,
those in which, for the purposes of the experiment, some information about him from the subject is withheld or distorted (for example, when it is necessary that the subject does not know about the true hypothesis of the study, he may be told a false one),
and those in which the subject is unaware of the purpose of the experiment or even of the very fact of the experiment (for example, experiments involving children).

Organization of the experiment

Flawless Experiment

Not a single experiment in any science is able to withstand the criticism of the supporters of the "absolute" accuracy of scientific conclusions. However, as a standard of perfection, Robert Gottsdanker introduced the concept of “perfect experiment” into experimental psychology - an unattainable ideal of an experiment that fully satisfies the three criteria (ideality, infinity, full compliance), to which researchers should strive to approach.

Interaction between experimenter and subject

Instruction to the subject

it is enough for some subjects to read the instruction once, for others - several times,
some subjects are nervous, while others remain cool,
etc.

Requirements for most instructions:

The instruction should explain the purpose and significance of the study
It clearly outlines the content, course and details of the experience.
It should be detailed and at the same time sufficiently concise.

Sampling problem

Stages of a psychological experiment

The general model for conducting a psychological experiment meets the requirements of the scientific method. When conducting a holistic experimental study, the following stages are distinguished:

Initial problem statement
- Statement of a psychological hypothesis
Working with scientific literature
- Search for definitions of basic concepts
- Compilation of a bibliography on the subject of the study
Refinement of the hypothesis and definition of variables
- Definition of experimental hypothesis
Choice of an experimental tool that allows:
- Manage independent variable
- Register dependent variable
Planning a Pilot Study
- Highlighting Additional Variables
- Choosing an Experimental Plan
Formation of the sample and distribution of subjects into groups in accordance with the adopted plan
Conducting an experiment
- Experiment preparation
- Instructing and motivating subjects
- Actually experimentation
Primary data processing
- Tabulation
- Information Form Transformation
- Data validation
Statistical processing
- Choice of statistical processing methods
- Converting an Experimental Hypothesis to a Statistical Hypothesis
- Carrying out statistical processing
Interpretation of results and conclusions
Recording the research in a scientific report, article, monograph, letter to the editor of a scientific journal

Advantages of the experiment as a research method

The following main advantages that the experimental method has in psychological research can be distinguished:

Possibility to choose the start time of the event
The frequency of the event under study
Changeability of results through conscious manipulation of independent variables

Control methods

Exclusion method (if a certain feature is known - an additional variable, then it can be excluded).
Equalization method (used when one or another interfering feature is known, but it cannot be avoided).
Randomization method (used if the influencing factor is not known and it is impossible to avoid its impact). A way to retest the hypothesis on different samples, in different places, on different categories of people, etc.

Criticism of the experimental method

Supporters of the unacceptability of the experimental method in psychology rely on the following provisions:

The subject-subject relationship violates scientific rules
The psyche has the property of spontaneity
The mind is too fickle
The mind is too unique
The psyche is too complex an object of study
And etc.

Notable psychological experiments

Zarochentsev K. D., Khudyakov A. I. Experimental psychology: textbook. - M.: Prospect Publishing House, 2005. ISBN 5-98032-770-3
Research in psychology: methods and planning / J. Goodwin. - 3rd ed. - St. Petersburg: Peter, 2004. ISBN 5-94723-290-1
Martin D. Psychological experiments. St. Petersburg: Prime-Eurosign, 2004. ISBN 5-93878-136-1
V. V. Nikandrov Observation and experiment in psychology. St. Petersburg: Rech, 2002 ISBN 5-9268-0141-9
Solso R. L., Johnson H. H., Beal M. C. Experimental psychology: a practical course. - St. Petersburg: prime-EVROZNAK, 2001.
Gottsdanker, Robert;"Fundamentals of psychological experiment"; Publishing house: M.: MSU, 1982;
D. Campbell. Models of experiments in social psychology and applied research. M., Progress 1980.

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

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

What is an experiment?

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

The main characteristics and features of the experiment are:

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

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

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

The most famous psychological experiments

hawthorne experiment

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

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

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

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

Milgram experiment

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

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

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

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

Stanford Prison Experiment

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

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

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

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

Ringelmann experiment

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

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

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

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

Experiment "I and others"

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

Experiments shown in the film:

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

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

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

"Monsterous" experiment

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

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

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

There is more information about the "monstrous" experiment.

Project "Aversion"

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

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

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

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

Landis experiments

Landis's experiments are also called Spontaneous Facial Expressions and Subordination. A series of these experiments was carried out by psychologist Carini Landis in Minnesota in 1924. The purpose of the experiment was to identify the 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 students of Landis.

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

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

You can learn more about Landis' experiments here.

Little Albert

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

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

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

You can learn more about the Little Albert experiment here.

Learned (learned) helplessness

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

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

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

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

Boy raised like a girl

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

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

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

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

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

The word "experiment" is used by psychologists in two senses, which leads to some confusion. Often the phrase "experimental study" is used in the sense empirical research, i.e. research, an essential part of which is the acquisition of experimental data using empirical methods. For example, as a synonym for empirical research, experimental research is treated in many textbooks "Experimental Psychology", where, as a rule, various designs of empirical research are presented, such methods of collecting empirical data as conversation, observation, quasi-experiment, experiment are described. In a narrow sense, "experimental research" means an empirical study in which data are collected by the method of experiment. The specificity of the experimental method as a special method of data collection is primarily that it allows you to test hypotheses about causal relationships between variables. Experiment in a narrow sense - an empirical method, "assuming the researcher's purposeful impact on the situation he controls, the quantitative and qualitative assessment of the consequences of this impact in the phenomenon or process under study, and the identification of causal relationships between the impact variables (independent) and the variables of its consequences (dependent)" (Breslav, 2010, p. 182).

Experiment is often referred to as the "king of science". In the methodological reflections of psychologists, it is often given 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 makes it possible to exclude most of the side effects on the phenomenon of interest to the psychologist, to obtain a fairly “clean” picture of the changes in the dependent variable under the influence of independent ones, and thereby make 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 development of psychology as an independent science. Through 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 the theoretical propositions put forward was borrowed from the natural sciences, but it cannot be said that in psychology the experimental method was a complete copy of 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, methodological techniques of introspection were included in the designs of experiments, and, in fact, the experimentation of the first psychological laboratories was a combination of the experiment itself with elements of subjective qualitative methods. The experiments of J. Piaget led him to the formation of the author's type of "clinical method", in which experimental tests are combined with conversation and empathic familiarization with the child's logic. The experiments of Gestalt psychologists were also distinguished by their originality. Experiments on the solution of a creative problem, conducted by K. Dunker, were aimed at a qualitative reconstruction of thought processes and were more like 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 the school of K. Levin, when the experiment itself turned from an artificial situation into a kind of “dramatic segment” of life, a “psychological space” in which a 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 tends to be rooted in a specific 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 it touches upon, but in general it can be said that in one form or another they are inherent in all psychological studies, not excluding strict in the scientific sense of experimentation. Another thing is that in the justification of 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 the main task) of the researcher is to control the situation, including control over variables related to interaction with the subject. According to supporters of the experimental method, it is necessary to strive to ensure that the effect of the factors of communication 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 \u200b\u200bthe "absolute observer" that has long been questioned. In reality, the practice of experimentation in psychology has never distanced itself from the communicative context; the latter was not only always taken into account, but was an integral part of the overall situation of the experiment, in which the experimenter had to act not only as a research scientist, but also as a competent communicator.

Example 17.1

Positioning in the experimental situation

In the last twenty years, in connection with the development in psychology of the social constructionism movement and discourse-analytical approaches, 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 researchers, and the subjects always play the role of active participants, and each of them has the opportunity to take different positions in the discourse. Leder and Antaki give, in particular, such an example.

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 trials (it does not matter which ones, since the experiment was not in that). The subjects came to the appointed place, and there they were asked to wait a little. While they were waiting, such a situation was specially created when they had to involuntarily overhear the details of the upcoming experiment, which were told by a person who allegedly had just passed through it (in fact, a figurehead). Then they were invited to the experimental room, where they performed some tasks. Half of the subjects were asked by the experimenter if they would be able to take part in the next session. Everyone agreed. It was assumed that such a request and a response to it strengthen the obligations of the subjects to the experimenter, and they are able to be aware of this. Finally, all subjects - both those who were asked to take part in the next session and those who were not asked - were asked if they had heard anything about the experiment before they entered 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 through the agreement to take part again), the more difficult it is to accept what can destroy it, and, accordingly, the stronger the desire to hide the fact. that inadvertently overheard the details of the experiment. Leder and Antaki problematize this conclusion. Well versed in the critical "ethnography of the experiment", they wonder what communicative positions the participants in the study 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 a "normal speaker", included 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 of whether they overheard the details of the experiment in the waiting room. A negative response 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 question-and-answer game. However, the communication lines of the speakers can be very diverse, in which 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 flexible that they (and hence the experiment as a whole) allow for a huge number of interpretations. It can be argued that in this case the problem is only with the internal validity of the study, which can be solved by more precise control over words and experimental settings. But no changes in words can exclude the very fact of the presence of the researcher in the process of dialogue and the search by the subjects for the optimal position of the participants for them. The experimenters are always involved in a conversation with the subjects, the structure of which is far from naive simplicity; and in order to conduct a dialogue, experimenters must refer to their own practical knowledge of communicative situations. In interpretation, however, researchers tend to ignore their own role in communication: all participants are placed in a standard world formed by only two positions: speaker and listener, which makes it possible 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 theory put forward.

Note that it is necessary to take into account the forms of positioning not only in actual communication, but also in a wider social context. This is usually discussed specifically 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 controversy and social perceptions. Asking respondents questions related to mental well-being and attitudes towards themselves or towards certain aspects of reality, psychologists put them before the need to take a position in the world of social values and ideas. So the questionnaires do not just fix individual patterns, attitudes, etc., as is commonly believed, but create conditions for people to position themselves and their interlocutors. Psychologists conducting research cannot remain outside the social controversy either. It turns out that researchers and subjects in the process of research can be positioned on one or on opposite sides of the barricades. And the responses of the respondents reflect this situation, while psychologists take them as an expression of context-independent psychological states or structures (Ibid.).

An experimental study begins with the identification of a 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. Identification of the problem entails the construction of a theoretical hypothesis that explains the problematic phenomenon. After a theoretical explanation is formulated, empirical consequences are derived from it, which are formulated in the form of hypotheses about causal relationships between variables. The logic of thinking is something like this: if the proposed theory is correct, then a causal relationship between specific independent and dependent variables should be established (Campbell, 1996; Basic methods of data collection in psychology, 2012). According to D. Campbell (1996), a causal relationship between variables can be established if three requirements are met:

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

The next stage is planning and conducting the experiment itself to test empirical hypotheses about the relationship between variables. In its most general form, the experimental procedure consists in the fact that the researcher purposefully changes the independent variable, measures the performance of the dependent variable at different levels of the independent variable, and creates conditions that exclude possible alternative explanations for the change in the dependent variable as due to the influence of side variables (Basic data collection methods 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 causal 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 causal relationships between the variables. It should be borne in mind that in this case, a stronger conclusion about the absence of a causal relationship between the dependent and independent variables will be invalid, since the statistical tests are designed in such a way that it is impossible to prove the absence of differences with their help (ibid., p. 146 ).

Let's pay attention to the following: the presence of a causal relationship between variables follows logically from the theory, so if the theory is true, there must be a causal relationship. But the truth of the theory does not follow with logical necessity from the presence of a causal relationship between the independent and dependent variables shown in the experiment, since this relationship can be explained by other theories. In general, the transition from empirical data to theoretical propositions is very difficult. The conclusion concerning the status of a theory is not a statement mechanically following the 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 harmony, consistency, plausibility, explanatory potential, significance in the context of the achievements of a particular subject area. In general, the truth of a theory cannot be proven empirically. Experiments are just a way to test the theory for strength. In essence, the conclusion about the falsity of a theory also cannot be drawn on the basis of empirical data alone: this is possible only with the help of another theory that has withstood tests of strength and has greater explanatory potential and greater conceptual power.

Science develops according to certain laws. The main thing for science is the method of cognition, its reliability and objectivity. Scientists try to operate with proven facts and strive to clearly fix the difference between facts and hypotheses. Non-scientists often confuse scientific fact with speculation; often take what is desired or imagined for what actually exists in nature. Before conducting a study, scientists always formulate certain scientific problems in the form of contradictions between what we know and what we do not know, as well as what we may learn after the planned study. In addition, scientists must also substantiate relevance and novelty of your research. Of course, the scientific experimental method is not perfect and cannot be infallible. However, it is many orders of magnitude more accurate than the usual perceptions and sensations of a person, given to him by nature and "formatted" by the social environment, which operates with social ideas, myths, stereotypes, prejudices, etc.

As already noted, the basic principles of all experimental sciences at the beginning of the 17th century. formulated by Galileo Galilei. He showed that the main method of scientific knowledge is an experiment, and the scientific explanation of the studied world should be based on a theory or model that describes a certain perfect object, containing the main characteristics of the studied real objects and, as it were, excluding everything secondary and insignificant. At the same time, ideal objects do not exist in nature; they are only in the thinking of a scientist, scientific literature and are the result of scientific activity that describes in a generalized form the main properties of all real objects of a given type.

Table 3.1

Comparative table of the main types of scales and mathematical criteria for processing the results

(according to N. K. Malhotra)

	Main characteristics	Commonly Known Examples	Marketing Examples	Statistics
	Main characteristics	Commonly Known Examples	Marketing Examples	descriptive	deductive
Funeral (non-metric)	Numbers designate and classify objects	Health insurance policy numbers, football team player numbers	Numbers of brands, stores, classification by gender	Percentages, fashion	Chi-square test, binomial test
Ordinal (non-metric)	The numbers indicate the relative positions of objects, but not the magnitude of the differences between them.	Quality ranks, team ranks in the competition, ratings	Preference ranks, market position, social class	Percentiles, median	Rank correlation, analysis of variance
Interval (metric)	The difference between the objects being compared. The starting point is chosen arbitrarily	Temperature (Fahrenheit, Celsius)	Relationships, opinions, odds	Range, mean, standard deviation	Correlation coefficient, t -test, regression, factor analysis, analysis of variance
Relative (metric)	The starting point is fixed. The coefficients given by the scale can be calculated	Length, width, height, weight	Age, income, costs, sales volumes, market shares	Geometric mean, harmonic mean	The coefficient of variation

The main method of psychology is experiment, which is a type of empirical research, during which it is checked scientific hypothesis and causal relationships between variables are identified. Unlike correlation study, where statistical relationships between variables and factors influencing them are established, in the experiment we get the opportunity to find reason phenomenon, and analyzing the sequence of causes and effects hidden from us, describe it internal mechanism. Moreover, if the volume of possible causes is large enough, then the formulation of the cause chosen by the researcher from the possible set can be arbitrary, or rather, related to the tasks that the author solves in the framework of his research activities.

From observations The experiment is different in that it involves the active intervention of the researcher in the situation of the study. When performing an experiment, the researcher controls (manipulates) one or more variables and captures all the changes that occur during the experiment. He studies the influence independent variable(initial data) on dependent variables(observed results).

In psychology, as in many other sciences, experiments of several types are carried out. In social psychology, a very popular type of research with experimental and control groups of test subjects. However, situations may arise in psychology when it is extremely difficult or even impossible to conduct an experiment for a number of reasons, for example, due to the fact that, once participating in an experiment, a person involuntarily learns, and this affects the repeated execution of an experimental task. Under the conditions of the experiment, the subject may have different motivation - both very high and very low or inadequate to the conditions of the experiment, which can also significantly affect the results. The subject often seeks to impress the experimenter, or vice versa, the experimenter may cause him a negative attitude. Or, for example, the subject may emotionally react to the task, experience anxiety, embarrassment, and other emotions. All these artifacts are taken into account during the experiment, if, of course, they can be taken into account in principle.

One of the main criteria for the scientific character and reliability of a laboratory experiment is its reproducibility under similar laboratory conditions. Another criterion is the mandatory statistical processing the results obtained, i.e. application of mathematics.

Method natural experiment was first proposed by the Russian psychologist A.F. Lazursky in 1910. A natural experiment provides reliable information, but cannot be repeated many times, since the subjects are aware of its conduct and behave in such a way that the experimenter often cannot control the research situation. When conducting psychological experiments, ethical problems often also arise. For example, the question of how ethical it is to use covert surveillance, covert video and audio recording equipment, Gesell mirrors, etc. is widely discussed. Very often, the outstanding American experimental psychologist Stanley Milgram was accused of unethical research.

The history of psychology knows many talented scientists who were engaged in experimental research in its various branches and developed not only methods for studying certain phenomena and the causes that cause them, but also formulated general principles and requirements for the design and conduct of experiments. Their names cannot be listed. Suffice it to recall the most striking names that have significantly advanced psychology in terms of its understanding of the nature of the human psyche and communication. These are S. Milgram, M. Sheriff, S. Ash, E. Mayo, L. Festinger, S. Moscovici, F. Zimbardo, E. L. Thorndike, B. F. Skinner, W. Neisser, K. Koffka, F Keller, M. Wertheimer, K. Levin, D. Kahneman and A. Tversky and many, many others.

The most common distinction in psychology laboratory experiments and field, i.e. in natural conditions. Laboratory experiments are carried out in isolated conditions and often with the use of special equipment and measuring apparatus. These two types of experiments differ in a number of characteristics, but in all cases they give the most complete understanding of the nature of certain phenomena, objects, processes, etc., and make it possible to discover hidden sequences of cause-and-effect relationships (mechanisms) of observed phenomena.

Conducting experiments involves the allocation of units of measurement, variables, the use of certain experimental plans, etc. In psychology units of observation as a rule, people who are called test subjects (in applied sociology, the term "respondents" is used). In experiments, independent and dependent variables are distinguished. Dependent variables characterize the degree of influence of independent variables controlled by the researcher. Independent variables include the results of the actions performed by the subjects, solving problems, etc. All people who can be involved as potential subjects in the study are called the general population. Any of the groups that make up the general population and take part in the study is called sample. Since conclusions based on the results of selective studies are made about the entire population of subjects, and not just about the sample, it is important that it reflects the properties of the entire target group. If this can be observed, then the sample is called representative, if not, then - unrepresentative .

When conducting experiments using the method of control and experimental groups, the process of distributing subjects into groups is very important. With random distribution (randomization), each selected participant has an equal chance of getting into any of the groups (experimental or control). As a result, the task of the second stage of the formation of the control and experimental groups is to distribute as evenly as possible among the two groups of subjects with individual differences, i.e. equalize the groups or make them equivalent (for example, by sex, age, income level, etc.).

When conducting experiments, it is also necessary to take into account the factors of the mental dynamics of the subjects, since after time, from one measurement to another, the subjects gain experience, get tired, change their attitude to the task, and in longitudinal (long-term) studies - they grow old, change their stable views and can even change their worldview.

The following designations are accepted for schematization of experimental plans:

X – the impact of the independent variable, the result of which is to be evaluated;

O – the process of observing and measuring the dependent variable;

R - randomization – random order of presentation of stimuli or distribution of subjects into groups in random order.

In addition, movement from left to right in the experimental plan means movement in time. The horizontal arrangement of symbols in the formula means that they belong to the same sample; the vertical arrangement of symbols means that they refer to events that occur simultaneously.

Example 1

X O1 O2

This order of symbols means that one group of subjects was exposed to some independent factor (X) and the reaction to it was measured twice - O1 and O2.

Example 2

R X O1

R X O2

The entry means that two groups of subjects are formed simultaneously based on a random distribution ( R ). Then the subjects were exposed to some independent factor (X), and the reaction to it was determined in both groups at the same time point - O1 and O2 .

Example 3

EU:R O1 X O1

CG:R O3 O4

This is an experimental model in which the experimental group ( EG ) is exposed to an independent factor, and the control ( CG ) is not exposed. Preliminary and final measurements are carried out in both groups. The sample of respondents is determined randomly ( R ), while half of the subjects are selected for inclusion in the experimental group ( EG ), half - in the control ( CG ). After that, a certain state of the respondents of both groups is recorded, for example, using measuring equipment or by filling out a special test (O1 and O3). Then the members of the experimental group are influenced (for example, they are shown some kind of object for perception, they solve some kind of mental problem or watch a commercial that should motivate them to buy a product). After that, the members of both groups are examined again (O2 and O4) . The effect of experimental exposure is defined as

(O2-O1)-(O4-O3).

This experimental design allows you to control a large number of extraneous factors. But another plan for conducting the experiment is also possible, for example, when the experimental group of respondents is exposed, and the control group is not exposed, but preliminary measurements are not carried out.

Example 4

EG: K X O1

CG:RO 2

Here, the effect of experimental exposure is calculated as

This model is very easy to use, however, with this technique, extraneous factors (artifacts) can influence the results of the experiment. Due to the fact that this model is easier for the researcher (in terms of implementation time, cost, sample size, etc.), it is most common both in psychology and in a number of other experimental sciences.

If the researcher for some reason cannot use the models described above real experiment, he resorts to pseudo-experiment. In this case, it is necessary to take into account the influence of uncontrolled factors on the results obtained, since the level of control of conditions in such an experiment is much lower than in studies performed according to the plan of a real experiment. The most common examples of pseudo-experiment are time series and multiple time series.

Time series is a model that provides for periodic measurement of dependent variables. The measurement of the variable is carried out both before and after the impact, which makes it possible to assess the degree of influence of the independent factor.

Example 5

O 1 O 2 O 3 O 4 X O 6 O 7 O 8 O 9

This model can be illustrated as follows. In the group of subjects at each moment of time (day, week, etc.) for a certain period of time, a certain characteristic is fixed, for example, the number of credits issued by the bike ( O 1, O 2, O 3, O 4). Then carried out

advertising or PR campaign of the bank ( X ), after which the dynamics of loans issued is again monitored using similar time parameters (O5, O6, O7, O8) . Customer activity is recorded both before and after the promotion, which allows you to determine whether the impact of the advertising campaign has a short-term, long-term or no effect on customer behavior. The main disadvantage of such an experimental plan is the inability to separate the influence of a certain factor from any other factors (artifacts) that can influence its results in a latent form throughout the entire study.

Multiple Time Series Model is an experimental plan, similar in content to the time series model, but it uses not only the experimental, but also the control group.

Example 7

O 1 O 2 O 3 O 4 O 5 X O 6 O 7 O 8 O 9 O 10

O 1" O 2" O 3" O 4" O 5" O 6" O 7" O 8" O 9" O 10"

This model gives more reliable results, and the reliability of the study is increased by comparing the results of measurements in groups. In the experimental group, the results are compared before and after exposure to the independent variable and with the control group.

As a fundamental science, psychology was formed about 250 years after the death of Galileo, when, as mentioned above, the German psychologist Wilhelm Wundt created the world's first experimental psychological laboratory and began an experimental study of the structure of the psyche.
Methodologists refer to such objects the periodic table, the ideal gas law, some mathematical concepts (point, line, plane), etc.
For example, participants in a single focus group study in marketing may represent a non-representative sample, while participants in a mass survey may represent a representative one. Therefore, in order to obtain more accurate data, several focus group studies are carried out, comparing the obtained qualitative results with quantitative ones (mass surveys).

Portal for the student. Self-training