Patterns of psychological behavior of human beings (several psychological experiments)

See a few interesting experiments, excerpt down:

Lab 1: Queue jump

A psychologist ran to the library and asked the person in line for a copy to do her a little favor. "Sorry, I have 5 pages to copy, can I make a copy first?" "When she said so, 60% of the people agreed. Then she changed the phrase: "Excuse me, can I make a copy first?" Because I want to make a few pages of paper. "She only added two more words" because ", but the agreed people actually increased to 93%.

Although psychologists have long known that when we ask someone for help, there is a greater likelihood of getting help if we can give a reason. But the experiment proved that, just by hearing "because" of the two words, people would think she had a reason to give help. This proves that the existence of human psychological stereotypes, will be unconsciously affected.

Lab 2: Donation Letter

The American Association of Disabled servicemen sends out a lot of donations every year, and by the statistics, 18% of the recipient will donate. One year, the association took the initiative to put a small gift in the letter (such as a sticker on the back of stickers), the results of the donation rate almost doubled, 35% of the recipient donated.

This shows that there is a "reciprocal mentality", the acceptance of other people's gift will have a sense of indebtedness, feel that they should return. Therefore, giving someone a little small favors before making a request will greatly improve the likelihood of the other's promise.

Experiment 3: Accompany the Tour

Psychologists came to the university campus to ask students if they would like to accompany a group of juvenile delinquents to visit the zoo, only 17% of students said they would. Psychologists have changed the idea of asking if you would like to provide 2 hours of counseling every week for juvenile offenders, at least two years? All the people said they didn't want to. The psychologist asked, "Would you like to accompany them to visit a zoo?" This time, 50% of the students said they would.

As you can see, letting the other person reject a larger request will increase the likelihood of another smaller request being accepted three times times. The psychological explanation is that people do not like to have a sense of indebtedness, and when you reject each other you create a potential sense of indebtedness, even if you do not actually owe each other anything. In order to do not owe, people tend to agree with the second smaller request. On the other hand, there is a comparative theory of psychology, as the two requests form a comparison, making the second request look less excessive, so it is more likely to get consent.

The application of this situation in real life is that if you want to sell to others, you must first show the quality of the high-priced goods; If you want to borrow money from others, you should start by borrowing a very high amount. This increases the likelihood that a second request will be accepted.

Lab 4: Guarding items

Psychologists on the beach casually looking for a person as the subject, in the 1 meters away from his place, put down the bath towel, very relaxed lying on the top, listening to portable radio music. A few minutes later, the psychologist climbed up from the bath towel and went to the sea. After a while, a disguised thief came and picked up the radio and left. Usually, the subjects were unwilling to take the risk of blocking the thief. In 20 experiments, only 4 people came forward.

Psychologists changed their approach, and when they swam in the sea, they asked the subjects to look after them, and all the subjects agreed. When the thief came to pick up the radio, 19 of the 20 subjects stood up. They chased the thief, told him to stop, asked him to explain his behavior, and most people rushed to hold him or simply took the radio out of his hand.

This is because people want to be able to keep their promises. There is a psychological desire to be consistent with what has been done in the past. Once a decision has been made, or a position has been chosen, there is a pressure to be consistent with it to prove the decision made before.

Experiment 5: Public service Billboard

The psychologist disguised as a volunteer, in a residential area of California, to the residents of the house, asking for permission to set up a huge public service billboard on the community lawn. In order to let residents understand the appearance of the billboard, they showed a picture: a beautiful house is almost covered with billboards, the Billboard on the crooked written a few words "careful driving." 83% of the population rightly rejected the request.

Psychologists have switched to a community and asked residents if they agreed to set up a small brand that promotes safe driving. The request was nothing, almost all of them agreed. Two weeks later, psychologists took pictures of the same big billboard and asked the residents to agree that only 24% of the residents rejected the request.

People have different attitudes towards the same billboard. The reason is that once people have agreed to a request, the attitude will change, and he will agree to the request of the stranger and try to be consistent with his past commitment.

In general, when a person openly chooses a position, it immediately creates a pressure to maintain that position, because he wants to appear consistent in the eyes of others. And the more people who know where you stand, the less likely you are to change it. So the best way to keep the other person's promise is to let him write down the promise and show it to others as much as he can.

Lab 6: Bystanders

Psychologists have asked a New York University student to pretend to have seizures on the road. When there is only one bystander present, 85% of the cases he chooses to help the sick college students. But when 5 bystanders were present, the probability of a college student getting help was only 31%.

Since the vast majority of people who pass alone will lend a helping hand, it is hard to say that this is an "indifferent society". But, contrary to the general view, the more bystanders, the less likely it is to actually get help, why?

Psychologists believe that there are at least two reasons. The first reason is that when there are multiple bystanders, everyone's sense of responsibility goes down, "maybe someone else will help, maybe somebody has done it." "As a result, no one helped. The second reason is that everyone sees that nobody else is acting, and that since everyone is not worried, it means everything is OK. Moreover, we do not like to appear flustered in front of others.

It is important to recognize that bystanders do not take action not because of apathy or lack of goodwill, but because they do not know whether there is an emergency or whether they have the responsibility to act. If they know clearly that they are responsible, their response is very rapid.

When you're in danger, the right thing to do is pick a person from the crowd, stare at him, point at him, and say to him, "you, Mr. Blue Jacket, I need help, please call an ambulance." "In such a simple sentence, you can let people around you know your situation, define their responsibilities, and eliminate all the uncertainties that could hinder or delay the bailout."

Experiment 7: The name of the football team

After the end of the final exams, psychologists conducted telephone surveys of students at Arizona, State State University and asked them to win or lose a match on the school's football team. If the last game loses, only 17% of the students will say "our team", and if the last match wins, the student who uses the word "we" will increase to 41%.

The reason for this difference is that people are attracted to people who are similar to themselves. Because no one likes to be a loser, people are more willing to stay away from losers or differences.

Lab 8: Estimating height

The psychologist introduced a visitor from the University of Cambridge, in turn, to a five-class student in a university in Australia. But in every class introduced him, his identity is not the same. In the first class he was introduced as a student, in the second class he was introduced as an experimenter, in the third class he was introduced as a lecturer, in the fourth class he was introduced as a senior lecturer, and in the fifth class he was introduced as a professor.

When he left, the psychologist asked the students to estimate the height of the visitor. The results showed that, with each increase in status, the average student's estimated height would increase by 1.5 centimeters. Therefore, when the visitor is "Professor" than he is "student", height is 6 centimeters higher.

This means that the title has a great influence on people, the more prominent a person's title, the higher the person's height is estimated. This reflects the mentality of people looking up to authority.

Lab 9: Running a red light

Psychologists let a 31-year-old man in several different places, running red light across the road. Half the time, he wore a high-leveled suit with a tie, while the other half wore regular overalls. In the latter case, not many people followed him through the red light; in the former case, the people who followed him were in droves.

This shows that it is easy for people to judge authority from clothing. If the other person wears a set of authoritative clothes, most people will choose to obey.

Experiment 10: Honk the Horn

Psychologists conducted a survey at a busy junction in San Francisco. When the green light is on, if a normal economy car is parked in front of it, it is not open, and almost all the drivers behind it are honking, and most people press it more than once. However, if the front stop is a luxury limousine, only 50% of the drivers will honk the horn, the rest of the people are waiting in the back, until it starts.

This shows that people will judge the status of the owner from the vehicle and respect the person who owns the famous car.

Lab 11: Tasting and drying

Psychologists let some consumers taste the same biscuits. Half of the people had 10 biscuits in the jar, while the other half had only 2 biscuits in the jar. It is conceivable that the latter half of the people have higher evaluation of biscuits.

This suggests that people are more likely to be judged on what is scarce. So instead of telling people what they're going to get, tell them what they're going to lose, and it's easier to have an impact on others.

Patterns of psychological behavior of human beings (several psychological experiments)