zlacker

>>lcaff+(OP)
Note that Rosenhan was a social psychologist. The list of faulty or outright fraudulent experiments done by psychologists grows ever longer. The entire field seems bankrupt to me. Part of the problem are perverse incentives. Get one positive and interesting result (which you can tailor to the zeitgeist for maximum impact) and you can live off books, TED talks and lectures for your whole life. Recent examples include power posing and confidence [1] (poor experiment) or changing political bias regarding gay rights [2] (outright fraud).

If psychology wants the status and rewards of being considered a legitimate science, it needs to make dramatic changes. In the meantime any initial result psychological research produces must be considered not just preliminary, but suspect.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_posing [2] https://science.sciencemag.org/content/348/6239/1100.2

>>Gatsky+Ea
> The list of faulty or outright fraudulent experiments done by psychologists grows ever longer.

So what social-psychological experiments are bogus?

The most famous problem experiment I can think of is Zimbardo's fake prison, and IIRC the primary objection was that the effect was too strong. He let it go on too long and everyone was disgusted.

Rosenhan's experiment is bogus, yes, but I have to wonder... psychiatrists were condoning lobotomies just 15 years earlier. Is it likely that an entire discipline could turn itself around in that time? (Which doesn't excuse Rosenhan, of course)

I am 100% open to your thesis but would like more data.

>>mnemon+Xg
The results of the Milgram experiments were selectively publicized to sound more provocative. The context of the experiment was the trial of the nazi Adolf Eichmann, who plead during his trial that he was merely "following orders." (There is a myriad of evidence that he was in fact an enthusiastic ideologically motivated nazi who believed in what he was doing.)

The idea that a 'normal person' might become a nazi if ordered by an authority figure was provocative, since it suggested the potential to be a nazi existed in many if not all of us. The disturbing and provocative result of Milgram's experiment seemed to suggest that 'regular people' could indeed become nazis if given orders from an authority figure.

The deceit occurred when the results to publish were cherrypicked from a larger set of experiments performed by Milgram and his team, in which various variables were tweaked. The people from New Haven (home to Yale University) were most likely to comply when given orders from a man dressed like a scientist and were less likely to comply when the orders were given by people in other sorts of costumes. Why? Because people in New Haven had pride in their community, in the university located in their community, and had a belief in the necessity of science. They complied when they were told that compliance would further scientific progress, which they considered to be virtuous. These people were in fact motivated by ideology, just as Adolf Eichmann was. Just as Adolf Eichmann believed in the necessity of the nazi ideology, these people believed in the necessity of scientific progress.

So what did the experiments actually show? It showed that many people are willing to commit atrocities if they believe the ends justify the means. That's not really a provocative result.