Psychology is famous for its unusual and sometimes monstrous experiments. This is not physics, where you need to roll balls on the table, and not biology with its microscopes and cells. Here the objects of research are dogs, monkeys and people. Paul Kleinman described the most famous and controversial experiments in his new work "Psychology". AiF.ru publishes the most notable experiments described in the book.

prison experiment

Philip Zimbardo conducted a curious experiment, which is called the Stanford Prison Experiment. Scheduled for two weeks, it was terminated after 6 days. The psychologist wanted to understand what happens when a person's individuality and dignity are taken away - as happens in prison.

Zimbardo hired 24 men, whom he divided into two equal groups and distributed the roles - prisoners and guards, and he himself became the "head of the prison." The entourage was appropriate: the guards wore uniforms, and each had a club, but the “criminals”, as befits people in this position, were dressed in poor overalls, they were not given underwear, and an iron chain was tied to their leg - as a reminder about the prison. There was no furniture in the cells, only mattresses. The food wasn't outstanding either. In general, everything is real.

The prisoners were kept in cells designed for three people around the clock. The guards could go home at night and generally do whatever they wanted with the prisoners (except for corporal punishment).

The very next day after the start of the experiment, the prisoners barricaded the door in one of the cells, and the guards poured foam on them from a fire extinguisher. A little later, a VIP cell was created for those who behaved well. Very soon, the guards began to have fun: they forced the prisoners to do push-ups, strip naked and clean the latrines with their hands. As punishment for rebellions (which, by the way, the prisoners regularly organized), mattresses were taken away from them. Later, a normal toilet became a privilege: those who rebelled were not allowed out of the cell - they only brought a bucket.

Approximately 30% of the guards showed sadistic tendencies. Interestingly, the prisoners also got used to their role. At first they were promised to give 15 dollars daily. However, even after Zimbardo announced that he would not pay the money, no one expressed a desire to go free. People voluntarily decided to continue!

On the seventh day, a graduate student visited the prison: she was going to conduct a survey among the experimental subjects. The picture simply shocked the girl - she was shocked by what she saw. After looking at the reaction of an outsider, Zimbardo realized that things had gone too far, and decided to stop the experiment ahead of schedule. The American Psychological Association strictly forbade it ever being repeated on ethical grounds. The ban is still in effect.

invisible gorilla

Perceptual blindness is a phenomenon when a person is so overloaded with impressions that he does not notice anything around him. Attention is completely absorbed by only one object. All of us suffer from this kind of visual blindness from time to time.

Daniel Simons showed the subjects a video where people dressed in black and white T-shirts threw a ball to each other. The task was simple - to count the number of throws. While two groups of people were tossing the ball, a man dressed in a gorilla costume appeared in the center of the sports ground: he pounded his chest with his fists, just like a real monkey, and then quietly left the field.

After watching the video, the participants in the experiment were asked if they noticed anything strange on the site. And as many as 50% answered in the negative: half simply did not see a huge gorilla! This is explained not only by the focus on the game, but also by the fact that we are not ready to see something incomprehensible and unexpected in everyday life.

Killer teachers

Stanley Milgram known for his outrageous hair-raising experiment. He decided to study how and why people obey authority. The psychologist was prompted by the trial of a Nazi criminal Adolf Eichmann. Eichmann was accused of having ordered the extermination of millions of Jews during World War II. Lawyers built a defense based on the claim that he was just a military man and obeyed the orders of commanders.

Milgram advertised in the newspaper and found 40 volunteers ostensibly to study memory and learning abilities. Everyone was told that someone would be the teacher and someone would be the student. And they even held a draw so that people would take what was happening at face value. In fact, everyone got a piece of paper with the word "teacher" on it. In each pair of experimental subjects, the "student" was an actor who acted in concert with the psychologist.

So, what was this shocking experiment?

1. The “student”, whose task was to memorize the words, was tied to a chair and electrodes were connected to the body, after which the “teachers” were asked to go to another room.

2. There was an electric current generator in the "teacher's" room. As soon as the “student” made a mistake while memorizing new words, he had to be punished with a current discharge. The process began with a small discharge of 30 volts, but each time it increased by 15 volts. The maximum point is 450 volts.

So that the "teacher" does not doubt the purity of the experiment, they beat him with an electric shock with a voltage of 30 volts - quite noticeably. And that's the only real one.

3. Then the fun begins. The "student" remembers the words, but soon makes mistakes. Naturally, the experimental "teacher" punishes him, as it should be according to the instructions. With a discharge of 75 volts (of course, fake), the actor groans, then squeals and begs to untie him from the chair. Each time the current increases, the screams only get louder. The actor even complains of pain in the heart!

4. Of course, people were scared and wondered if it was worth continuing. Then they were clearly told not to stop in any case. And the people obeyed. Although some trembled and laughed nervously, many did not dare to disobey.

5. At around 300 volts, the actor furiously pounded the wall with his fists and shouted that he was in a lot of pain and that he could not bear this pain; at 330 volts it was completely quiet. Meanwhile, the “teacher” was told: since the “student” is silent, this is the same as the wrong answer. So, the quiet "student" must be shocked again.

7. The experiment ended when the "teacher" chose the maximum discharge of 450 volts.

The conclusions were terrible: 65% of the participants reached the highest point and "draconian" numbers of 450 volts - they applied a discharge of such force to a living person! And these are ordinary, “normal” people. But under the pressure of authority, they subjected those around them to suffering.

Milgram's experiment is still criticized for being unethical. After all, the participants did not know that everything was for fun, and experienced serious stress. No matter how you look at it, causing pain to another person turns into a psychological trauma for life.

Heinz dilemma

Psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg studied moral development. He believed that this is a process that continues throughout life. To confirm his guesses, Kohlberg offered children of different ages complex moral dilemmas.

The psychologist told the children a story about a woman who was dying - she was being killed by cancer. And then, by a lucky chance, one pharmacist allegedly invented a medicine that could help her. However, he asked for a huge price - $ 2,000 per dose (although the cost of manufacturing the drug was only $ 200). The woman's husband—his name was Heinz—borrowed money from friends and raised only half the amount, $1,000.

Arriving at the pharmacist, Heinz asked him to sell the medicine for his dying wife cheaper, or at least on credit. However, he replied, “No! I created a cure and I want to get rich.” Heinz fell into despair. What was to be done? That same night, he secretly entered the pharmacy and stole the medicine. Did Heinz do well?

Such is the dilemma. Interestingly, Kohlberg did not study the answers to the question, but the reasoning of children. As a result, he singled out several stages in the development of morality: starting from the stage when the rules are perceived as absolute truth, and ending with the observance of one's own moral principles - even if they run counter to the laws of society.

For whom the Bell Tolls

Many people know that Ivan Pavlov studied reflexes. But few people know that he was interested in the cardiovascular system and digestion, and he also knew how to quickly and without anesthesia insert a catheter in dogs in order to track how emotions and drugs affect blood pressure (and whether they affect at all).

Pavlov's famous experiment, when researchers developed new reflexes in dogs, became a grandiose discovery in psychology. Oddly enough, it was he who largely helped to explain why a person develops panic disorders, anxiety, fears and psychoses (acute states with hallucinations, delusions, depression, inadequate reactions and confused consciousness).

So how did Pavlov's experiment with dogs go?

1. The scientist noticed that food (an unconditioned stimulus) causes a natural reflex in dogs in the form of saliva. As soon as the dog sees the food, it starts to salivate. But the sound of the metronome is a neutral stimulus, it does not cause anything.

2. Dogs were given a lot of time to listen to the sound of the metronome (which, as we remember, was a neutral stimulus). After that, the animals were fed immediately (they used the unconditioned stimulus).

3. After a while, they began to associate the sound of the metronome with eating.

4. The last phase is the formed conditioned reflex. The sound of the metronome was always salivating. And it doesn’t matter if the dogs were given food after it or not. It just became part of the conditioned reflex.

Drawing from the book "Psychology" by Paul Kleinman. Publishing house "Mann, Ivanov and Ferber".

Excerpts courtesy of Mann, Ivanov & Ferber

Hundreds of thousands of physical experiments have been carried out over the thousand-year history of science. It is difficult to select a few "most-most." Among the physicists of the United States and Western Europe, a survey was conducted. Researchers Robert Creese and Stoney Book asked them to name the most beautiful physics experiments in history. Igor Sokalsky, a researcher at the Laboratory of High-Energy Neutrino Astrophysics, Ph.D.

1. Experiment of Eratosthenes of Cyrene

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

2. Experiment of Galileo Galilei

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

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

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

3. Another experiment of Galileo Galilei

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

4. Henry Cavendish experiment

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

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

5. The experiment of Jean Bernard Foucault

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

6. Isaac Newton's experiment

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

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

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

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

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

7. Thomas Young's experiment

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

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

8. Klaus Jonsson's experiment

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

9. Robert Milliken's experiment

The idea that the electric charge of any body is discrete (that is, it consists of a larger or smaller set of elementary charges that are no longer subject to fragmentation) arose at the beginning of the 19th century and was supported by such famous physicists as M. Faraday and G. Helmholtz. The term "electron" was introduced into the theory, denoting a certain particle - the carrier of an elementary electric charge. This term, however, was at that time purely formal, since neither the particle itself nor the elementary electric charge associated with it were discovered experimentally. In 1895, K. Roentgen, during experiments with a discharge tube, discovered that its anode, under the action of rays flying from the cathode, is capable of emitting its own, X-rays, or Roentgen rays. In the same year, the French physicist J. Perrin experimentally proved that cathode rays are a stream of negatively charged particles. But, despite the colossal experimental material, the electron remained a hypothetical particle, since there was not a single experiment in which individual electrons would participate.

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

10. Ernst Rutherford's experiment

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

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

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

the birth of socio-psychological ideas in the bowels of the social and natural sciences (this period was discussed above);

The separation of social psychology from sociology and psychology and its design as an independent branch of knowledge (late 19th - early 20th centuries);

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

F. Taylor's concept is focused not on the masses, but on a specific worker, considering him as an object of study. Since economic incentives (i.e. money) are the most important for the worker, according to F. Taylor, he gave them an advantage, and the inner side of motivation, associated with the interests, ideals, value orientations of the employee, remained out of the researcher's field of vision. F. Taylor did not attach any particular importance to the psychophysiological problems of labor. Being convinced of the great importance of professional selection, however, having no certain knowledge in the field of psychology and physiology, he did not reach the psychotechnical methods of selection. F. Taylor could not answer the question, can a completely untrained person become, for example, a turner, since his system dealt with an already trained worker.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continuing the series of stories about "classic" or "famous" psychological experiments, it should be noted that many of them could not be staged in our time. Modern ethical rules, requiring the unconditional prevention of both physical and mental trauma in the subject, would not allow Stanley Millgram's experiment (TrV-Science, No. 86), nor Philip Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment (TrV-Science, No. 102).

Behavior is everything

An experiment set up by the founder of behaviorism, John Brodes Watson ( John Broadus Watson) and entered the history of psychology under the name "little Albert", can also be put on a par with these experiments.

The full namesake of biographer Sherlock Holmes was born in 1878. In 1913, he announced the creation of a new direction in psychology - behaviorism. According to this theory, the subject of psychology is behavior, not the human psyche. Behavior, according to this theory, depends on external stimuli and the external environment, and not on internal mental processes.

Behaviorism quickly gained momentum, and in 1916, for one year, Watson was elected president of the American Psychological Association (86 years later, the author of the Stanford prison experiment also held this position).

Little Albert

At the very end of 1919, Watson and his assistant and mistress Rosalie Rayner set up an experiment that is designed to show the correctness of the behavioral theory. Their task is to evoke, through external stimuli, a complex mental emotion where it was not there before.

Watson and Rayner chose an 11-month-old infant, "Albert B.", for the experiments. He was a normally developed child, phlegmatic, and most importantly - accessible for research: his mother worked as a nanny in a local shelter for disabled children.

First, the experimenters tested Albert's reactions by showing him a white rat, various masks, a burning newspaper, and cotton yarn. None of these items showed fear in the baby.

Watson and her assistant then proceeded to develop a fear response. Simultaneously with the child being allowed to play with a white rat, the experimenter hit the meter-long steel strip hard with a hammer so that the child could not see the hammer and the strip. The loud sound frightened Albert. Of course, quite quickly the child began to be frightened of the rat itself - without a blow. The first phase of the experiment was over - the conditioned reflex of fear to the rat was really fixed in the baby.

Then a pause was taken for five days. Albert was again with the experimenters. They tested his reaction: ordinary toys did not cause a negative reaction. The rat still frightened the baby. Now it was necessary to check whether there was a transfer of the fear reaction to other animals and similar objects. It turned out that the child is really afraid of a rabbit (strongly), a dog (weakly), a fur coat, cotton yarn (minimum), a researcher's hair, a Santa Claus mask.

Further, Watson and Rayner (according to them) planned to demonstrate the ability to remove (redefine) the fear responses evoked, but they could not, because the child was taken from the hospital where the studies were conducted. However, in the very first article about the experiment, it is said that psychologists knew perfectly well when the baby would be taken away, and only indicates how they would like to relieve fear. Only in subsequent publications and interviews did they say that the child was taken away “suddenly”.

However, now for such methods of "treatment of fear" a psychologist in the United States could get a very long prison sentence for rape and pedophilia - after all, these methods included not only a candy offered to a baby at the same time as a rat, but also stimulation of the child's genitals.

Interestingly, in the article, Watson not only wrote about the correctness of his theory, but also did not fail to kick the theory of Sigmund Freud.

“Twenty years from now, the Freudians, if their hypotheses do not change, analyzing Albert’s fear of a fur seal coat (provided that he comes to their session), they will probably beg him to retell the contents of his dream to them and say that Albert is in At the age of three, he tried to play with his mother's pubic hair and was beaten for it. (We in no way deny that this might have elicited the conditioned response in any other case.) If the psychoanalyst had prepared Albert sufficiently to accept such a dream as an explanation for his avoidant tendencies, and if the psychoanalyst had the power and personal authority to to achieve his goal, then Albert would probably have been fully convinced that his dream really revealed all the factors that led to the emergence of this fear.

Beginning of the End

Watson was triumphant, but, oddly enough, the experiment proved to be the beginning of the end for behaviorism.

Firstly, the subsequent “fitting” and “smoothing” of the experimental results showed that methodologically the experiment is not doing well. It turned out that Watson from time to time “reinforced” fear reactions at the second stage and prevented the child from turning on compensatory mechanisms (Albert sucked his finger and calmed down, Watson pulled his finger out of his mouth).

Secondly, the further fate of Albert remained unknown - as well as the long-term effect of "fixing" fear.

Thirdly, no one succeeded in repeating the experiment subsequently. Including Watson himself: six months after publication, he had to leave Johns Hopkins University in connection with an ethical scandal. True, no one was worried about the fate of the baby - the affair of a married Watson with a graduate student outraged society much more. The psychologist had to go into advertising.

With this experiment, Watson tried to prove his thesis, now torn into quotes in textbooks: “Give me a dozen healthy, normally developed babies and my own special world in which I will raise them, and I guarantee that by choosing a child at random, I can make him at his own discretion by a specialist of any profile - a doctor, a lawyer, a merchant, and even a beggar or a thief - regardless of his talents, inclinations, professional abilities and the racial affiliation of his ancestors.

True, few people quote the continuation: “I draw conclusions that are not sufficiently supported by facts, and I admit it, but so do the defenders of the opposite point of view, and they have been doing this for millennia.”

Watson J. B., Rayner R. Conditioned emotional reactions // J. exp. Psychol. 1920. No. 3(1). P. 1–14.

Relaxedness, the ability to get out of difficult situations without panic and a feeling of complete inner freedom with emphasized political correctness and law-abidingness. The foundations of such a mentality are laid from an early age. What are the characteristics of American parenting?

Since the time of the development of the "Wild West", American citizens have managed to develop a unique set of qualities that make them recognizable in any country in the world: this is looseness, the ability to get out of difficult situations without panic and a sense of complete inner freedom with emphasized political correctness and law-abiding. The foundations of such a mentality are laid from an early age. What are the characteristics of American parenting?
Sergey Petrov

Trust in God, and don't make a mistake yourself!

America is a country of immigrants. And the mentality of US citizens (including the attitude towards children) was formed, on the one hand, on the basis of the colorful and diverse culture of different nationalities, and on the other, under the influence of the environment in which these people found themselves on the new continent. The territory that later became the United States was originally an English colony, and for a long time the bulk of the white pioneers there were Puritans - representatives of religious communities that in Britain were persecuted by the state and the dominant church.

These people moved from England to America, dreaming of carrying out certain experiments there on the socio-political reorganization of society. Puritan religious ideas are characterized by individualism, self-reliance, belief in one's chosenness and a special mission, as well as high moral standards in everyday life, diligence, truthfulness, restraint in feelings. In many ways, it was these qualities that helped the pioneers of the development of America to survive and become masters in the new land. They also had a decisive influence on the formation of the American nation as a whole and what we understand by the American character. The children of the settlers received an upbringing built mainly on fundamental biblical and family values. Most of the general education schools were confessional, that is, they belonged to one or another religious community. In addition, there was a network of Sunday schools.

In hard-to-reach areas, where representatives of confessions could not reach due to long distances and impassability, the residents themselves regularly arranged family readings and discussions of the Bible and other spiritual and moral literature. A significant part of the population lived in rural areas, on farms, which were sometimes at a great distance from the cities, and from each other. Therefore, in difficult situations, there was no one to wait for help from, the family could only rely on its own strength, and the children were brought up accordingly. The boys cultivated courage, initiative, the ability to independently make rational decisions, the ability to stand up for themselves and loved ones, love of freedom and self-confidence.

It is characteristic that the same was expected from girls - after all, in the absence of a husband, a woman had to be able to fulfill all his duties, and in which case, stand up for herself and her children. So, the ability to handle weapons, ride horseback and other typically masculine skills were held in high esteem by the fair sex. Of course, the ethnic and racial portrait of the United States has changed significantly since those times.

However, the Puritan morality and values ​​of the early settlers continue to influence the American parenting model.

Family is the main value

Family upbringing is still an important aspect for Americans. Parents, even busy and absorbed in work, consider it their indispensable duty to devote as much time as possible to their children, to be interested in their success and development, to delve into their hobbies and problems. Family trips to nature, excursions, picnics, at least regular dinners together are an integral part of the life of many American families. And a matinee organized in a kindergarten, a club, at a church or a national cultural organization, where there is nowhere for an apple to fall from dads and moms with video cameras, and any simple song or rhyme from children's lips causes a storm of applause - a completely ordinary picture.

Contrary to popular belief, the number of working mothers in the US is not that great and is on the decline. More and more parents prefer family to work and career. It is difficult to say with whom and where the majority of preschool children stay in the USA, since such statistics are in constant dynamics and differ greatly depending on the social, property and racial group. But, apparently, the number of kids who are cared for by housewives, nannies (babysitters) or attend various impromptu clubs and kindergartens is much greater than the number of children attending formal kindergarten structures.

An interesting feature of recent years is that dads are more likely to stay at home with children. Naturally, we are talking about cases where mothers really make an important career, and their earnings are more than enough for a comfortable family existence. It is not uncommon for parents to take advantage of flexible working hours or remote work through a virtual office in order to devote as much time to the family as possible. In America, various kinds of clubs for women with small children are widespread, in which mothers take turns staying with the babies of their friends, neighbors and co-religionists or meet on neutral territory (club, church, library, etc.) for communication, exchange of experience, and at the same time - for the children to play together.

The informality of such associations, of course, encourages the manifestation of the creative potential of their members, but does not allow them to be fully considered part of the education system.

Study will wait

A few words should be said about public libraries and so-called community centers. They exist almost everywhere. Often there are well-equipped playrooms, computer rooms, free or very inexpensive clubs, including for preschoolers.

Topics for every taste: drawing, singing, appliqué, dancing, theater groups, nature lovers' circles and many others. And the main goal of the classes is entertainment, play and feeling good and with the benefit of the time spent.

A child's academic achievements (for example, early reading or writing) worry American parents much less than Russian ones. In our country, the situation has already become normal when, upon entering the preparatory class, children are required to be able to read, and learning a foreign language in kindergarten is considered an advantage. Most Americans find it difficult to understand and accept such realities. It is believed that the child will certainly learn all these wisdoms when the time comes.

Life as it is

Another "curiosity" of American upbringing from the Russian point of view is that grandmothers in the United States, as a rule, are not burdened with worries about their grandchildren. Much of this attitude stems from the old Puritan ideal of self-reliance and self-sufficiency. Children are the problems of parents, and as soon as they considered themselves old enough to have babies, they should also think about who will take care of them. In addition, Americans are a very mobile nation, according to some estimates, the average US citizen changes his place of residence 4-5 times during his life, so often grandchildren live far from their grandparents and see them several times a year.

The services of tutors, hired educators and private teachers are practically not used by representatives of the middle class (namely, the bulk of the population belongs to it) in the United States. A qualified child-rearing specialist is very expensive here, and most families simply cannot afford it. However, even very wealthy Americans are not characterized by the desire to create special greenhouse conditions for their children. After all, children will not be able to live their whole lives in such a “sparing regime”, they will have to adapt to market conditions and competition, so sons and daughters need to be accustomed to the realities of everyday life in advance. True, working parents still hire babysitters to look after the smallest children.

The overwhelming majority of representatives of this profession in the United States are women without any special education, a considerable part of them are immigrants (often illegals) who agree to work without official registration for very little, by American standards, remuneration. Of course, babysitters spend a lot of time with babies and to a certain extent influence the formation of the personality of their pupils, but we are not talking about any systematic education here. Leaving young children unattended is prohibited, and parents who act in this way may be subject to administrative, and if this entailed any serious consequences (injury, fire), then criminal punishment.

It's time to get knowledge

There are also nurseries in the USA. But these are private commercial establishments, and keeping a child in them can cost more than paying for the services of a Mexican or Filipina babysitter. In nurseries and kindergartens, they play with children (including educational games), walk, feed them, put them to bed - in a word, they provide care. But education as such begins only in the preparatory class (kindergarden) at schools.

There is no state system of nurseries and kindergartens in this country, the state considers itself responsible for the education of children, starting from school age, more precisely, from the preparatory class of the school. So early childhood education in America is characterized by great breadth and freedom of approaches and methods. When a child turns 5 years old, he enters the kindergarten class. In public schools, education in it is free, like all educational supplies - pens, pencils, felt-tip pens, notebooks, plasticine. If desired, you can give the baby to a full-time (full-time) (from 8 or 9 to 15 hours) or a reduced class (from 9 to 12). For those who wish, two meals a day are organized, and children from low-income families eat for symbolic money or for free. Particular emphasis in the educational process is placed on those techniques that arouse interest and desire to participate - educational games, including outdoor games, drawing and making crafts, learning songs, poems, counting rhymes. It is considered important to develop children's imagination and imagination.

To do this, kids can “compose” a picture book, and then tell its story to their comrades and educator. In addition, under the supervision of a teacher, children take care of the plants, regularly water them, loosen the soil and share their achievements with the class. Kids can also watch the larvae of butterflies and grasshoppers, collect a collection of beautiful pebbles. Costumed performances, matinees and skits are regularly held in schools, to which mothers and fathers are always invited as spectators.

Many parents voluntarily help the teacher and the class, watch the kids during excursions or assist in matinees. As a rule, at the end of the school year, at the solemn line, the principal of the school personally thanks especially distinguished volunteers from among the parents, presenting them with commemorative badges and gifts.

Internationalism, patriotism and… chastity

One of the reasons for pride in modern America is multiculturalism. It is cultivated in schools from the very first steps. Children are taught that all people, regardless of race, nationality, religion or language, have equal rights and opportunities. Therefore, a situation in which a small representative of a different race, nationality, or a child with poor command of English would turn out to be an outcast is practically unthinkable in an American school. But along with this, “unity in diversity” is also professed, that is, the idea that no matter how different the people who inhabit America, they are primarily Americans, and this is strong.

Even in kindergarten, class begins each day with a choral recitation of "pledge of allegiance," an oath of allegiance to the United States. All babies soon memorize it, although often, due to age, they do not always understand its meaning. Of course, every school and every classroom is decorated with the US flag. The American approach to sex education and gender issues is largely shaped by the heritage of Puritan morality.

The corresponding course of classes is included in the curricula of general education schools, however, attending it is optional, and parents have the right to refuse their child to attend such lessons. A lot of attention is paid to the observance of external propriety. For example, even very young girls cannot be seen on a public beach without swimsuits. And any elements of eroticism on public television channels and in advertising are completely taboo.

No violence!

A few words should be said about domestic punishments and rewards. American law does not explicitly prohibit corporal punishment of children, but the prevailing opinion in society is that educational measures of this kind are a relic of the past and indicate the low intellectual and moral level of the parents who use them.

And the complaints of kids in a kindergarten, school or just neighbors about assault by mom or dad, not to mention external signs of such treatment (bruises, abrasions, etc.), can lead to serious proceedings and big problems for parents if it turns out that the measures of influence applied by them are inadequate. As a punishment for naughty kids, deprivation of entertainment, sweets, toys and other pleasures is practiced, but if a child complains about this to others, such an act of parents can be regarded as abuse (illegal actions that caused physical or moral damage).

As a result, the best way to convince the child that he behaved incorrectly is a conversation. It is believed that any punishment should be accompanied by a detailed explanation of its motives. At first glance, this approach may seem very complicated and inefficient, leading to permissiveness on the part of children, but in practice this method disciplines both children and parents.

To school? With pleasure!

The undoubted advantage of the American approach to education is its informality and emphasis on practical knowledge and skills. The course towards pragmatism, sometimes to the detriment of theoretical knowledge, is due to the very American mentality. From the outside, the attitude towards the assimilation of knowledge in the United States, especially at the early stages (kindergarten, preparatory classes), may seem insufficiently serious and even superficial. In terms of theory, it probably is. However, many parents (in particular, immigrants from the former USSR) are pleasantly surprised by the desire with which children in America rush to school and share what they have learned and learned today.

Not a sneak, but an honest citizen

Many immigrants from Russia have a negative attitude towards the "sneak", which, as they think, is instilled in their children from an early age. But in America they look at it differently, children are taught to be law-abiding citizens and make sure that their comrades are also law-abiding. And if such a model of behavior is natural and generally accepted, including in the children's team, there are no problems with "snitches" and "informers".

"Strangers" do not exist

The American children's team is remarkable for its amazing tolerance. Situations when children are laughed at or mocked by peers are extremely uncharacteristic. Redheads, bespectacled, lop-eared can feel completely safe.

Of course, much depends on the area where the educational institution is located, but in general, fights and other misconduct are the exception rather than the rule for American children. The adaptation of children from other countries, including from Russia, as a rule, goes very smoothly in American schools. Spoken language skills are acquired within a few months, and in the future the child feels completely comfortable. Moreover, as a rule, he is not the only foreigner in the class. And in New York, Florida or California, the number of immigrant children in schools often outnumbers the number of Native Americans.

Of course, much in the process of adaptation depends on the personality and individual characteristics of the child, on the mood of his family to adapt to the new society, but the atmosphere of educational institutions favors this process to be as painless as possible.

Of course, the experience of another country and culture cannot be mechanically transferred to the native soil. But this is not necessary. However, familiarity with such an experience, a creative understanding of its positive and rational aspects are very important in order to change something for the better at home.

In the bonus, read the secret of raising children from Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt

It is difficult to remember more famous parents than the large couple Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt. Now there are six children in their family - Maddox, Pax, Zahra, Shiloh Nouvel and twins Knox and Vivienne. The plans are to have another biological and one adopted child, and stop there for now.

This celebrity couple has kids of different nationalities. The eldest Maddox is nine years old, the twins are only a year old. Raising such a company is not easy, but the Hollywood couple copes - to the delight of the paparazzi, the family often goes to joint lunches, where children demonstrate good upbringing.

Both Jolie and Pitt grew up in strict rules, and in their own family they try to adhere to the same principles. The main one is the rejection of any manifestations of aggression. They do not buy toy weapons for children; there is a strict ban on computer “shooters” in the family. In addition, children are not allowed to watch action films and, first of all, action games with the participation of their parents. Still, a mother in the image of a sexual killer is not the best example to follow.

However, the freedom of children does not take. Unlike a strict father, Angelina cares about the harmonious development of children. All the children in the world make a mess in the room, draw on the walls, stain their jeans with chocolate, and this should not be a tragedy.