Psychologists know you have to be careful when you go poking around the human mind because you're never sure what you'll find there. A number of psychological experiments over the years have yielded terrifying conclusions about the subjects.
Oh, we're not talking about the occasional psychopath who turns up. No, we're talking about you. The experiments speak for themselves:
心理学家认为，当你触及他人思想的时候必须格外小心，因为你永远也无法肯定你将会发现些什么。多年以来，就这一课题的大量心理实验已经得出了惊人的结论。
#5.
The Asch Conformity Experiment (1953)
The Setup:
Solomon Asch wanted to run a series of studies that would document the power of conformity, for the purpose of depressing everyone who would ever read the results.
Subjects were told that they would be taking part in a vision test, along with a handful of people. The participants were then shown pictures, and individually asked to answer very simple and obvious questions. The catch was that everybody else in the room other than the subject was in on it, and they were were told to give obviously wrong answers. So would the subject go against the crowd, even when the crowd was clearly and retardedly wrong?
The Result:
Questions the subjects were asked were like the puzzle shown here:
All they had to do was say which line on the right matched the one on the left. As you can see, Asch wasn't exactly asking these people to design the next space station. Really, the only way you could get the line questions honestly wrong is if you took two doses of LSD that morning and rubbed them directly on your eyeballs (which would have made for an even more awesome experiment, but we're getting off the point).Yet, sadly, 32 percent of subjects would answer incorrectly if they saw that three others in the classroom gave the same wrong answer. Even when the line was plainly off by a few inches, it didn't matter. One in three would follow the group right off the proverbial cliff.
Video: The Incredible Power of Conformity
What This Says About You:
Imagine how much that 32 percent figure inflates when the answers are less black and white. We all tend to laugh with the group even when we didn't get the joke, or doubt our opinion we realize ours is unpopular among our group. So much for those lectures you got in elementary school about peer pressure and "being brave enough to be yourself."
"Well, it's a good thing I'm a rebellious non-conformist," many of you are saying. Of course, for virtually all of you, the next step is to find out what the other non-conformists are doing ...
... and make sure you conform to it perfectly.
"Wait, you're right! Surely we must rebel against this mindless herd mentality! Let's all take to the streets!"
实验五、阿希的从众实验（1953年）
实验步骤：心理学者阿什(Solomon Asch)曾作了一系列用以验证从众效应的研究，其实验结果可令所有读到它的人都为之沮丧不已。
受试者们被告知，他们将与另一部分人一同参与某项视力测试，随后将出示一些图片，并要求各自回答一些十分容易和显见的问题。这个测试的陷阱在于，除受试者本人之外，房间里还有其他实验合作者共同进行这一测试，他们将按照要求给出显然错误的答案。那么，在大多数人都犯了再明白不过的弱智错误时，受试者会与其他人给出不同的结果么？
实验结果：受试者们要求回答的“难题”可参考下图所示他们所需做的仅是指出右侧中的哪一条线段与左侧的线段等长。你看，阿什所提的问题远未达到什么设计下一代空间站的那种难度。说实在话，一个能在这种类似线段长度的问题上答错的人，除非是你当天早上服用了两个剂量的迷幻药，还把它擦在了眼球上（当然这将会引发其他更为可怕的“试验”，我们略过不谈）。
然而遗憾的是，当看到参与测试的其他三个人给出错误的回答时，32%的受试者也给出同样错误的答案，即使线段长度的差别达到几个英寸也依然如此。三人成虎的谚语无疑得到了验证。
结果分析：试想一下，当这个问题的回答不是那么黑白分明、显而易见的时候，这个32%的比例将会上升到多少。即使我们没听懂一个笑话，我们也更愿意跟着大多数人一起笑起来；当我们发现自己不被大多数人认可时，我们更倾向于怀疑自己的观点。小学时我们所经历过的同龄人的竞争压力和“勇敢地做你自己”之类的鼓励，仿佛都不知所踪。
“嗯，我应该是一个叛经离道的独行者，这样挺好。”我们当中的大多数人总是这样说。当然，也同样是我们当中的每个人，下一步的举动就是观察其他“独行者”所做的事……
……然后，确保自己与他们所做的完全一致而不相违背。
#4.
The Good Samaritan Experiment (1973)
The Setup:
The Biblical story of the Good Samaritan, if you hadn't heard, is about a passing Samaritan helping an injured man in need, while other, self-righteous types walk right on by. Psychologists John Darley and C. Daniel Batson wanted to test if religion has any effect on helpful behavior.
Their subjects were a group of seminary students. Half of the students were given the story of the Good Samaritan and asked to perform a sermon about it in another building. The other half were told to give a sermon about job opportunities in a seminary.
As an extra twist, subjects were given different times that they had to deliver the sermon so that some would be in a hurry and others not.
Then, on the way to the building, subjects would pass a person slumped in an alleyway, who looked to be in need of help. We like to think Darley and Batson beat the crap out of some random dude to make it more realistic, but sources say otherwise.
C. Daniel Batson probably did not beat a homeless dude
The Result:
The people who had been studying the Good Samaritan story did not stop any more often than the ones preparing for a speech on job opportunities. The factor that really seemed to make a difference was how much of a hurry the students were in.
In fact, if pressed for time, only 10 percent would stop to give any aid, even when they were on their way to give a sermon about how awesome it is for people to stop and give aid. Though to be fair, if you were late for a class, did your professor ever accept, "I had to stop and help a wounded traveler" as an excuse? Probably not unless you could produce the guy's blood-stained shirt as evidence.
What This Says About You:
As much as we like to make fun of, say, anti-gay congressmen who get caught gaying it up in a men's bathroom and pointing out Al Gore's resource-hogging mansion ... 
... the truth is us common folk are just as likely to be hypocrites as the politicians. After all, it's much easier to talk to a room full of people about helping strangers than, say, actually touching a smelly and bleeding homeless man. So even pointing out their hypocrisy becomes a form of hypocrisy.
And in case you thought these results were just restricted to hypocritical seminary students, turn on the news. Remember a few years ago when cameras captured at least a dozen cars refusing to stop for an injured woman laying in the road?
Just like the students, they all had to be somewhere. The drivers were presumably proud enough of themselves just for swerving to miss her, rather than squishing her like roadkill.
Which brings us to ...
实验四、好撒马利亚人实验（1973）
实验步骤：如果你没有听过“好撒马利亚人”(the Good Samaritan)这一《圣经》故事，在此可以简要介绍如下：一个犹太人被强盗打劫而身受重伤、躺在路边，有祭司和利未人路过却不闻不问，惟有一个过路的撒玛利亚人不顾隔阂，动了善心帮助了他，故事借以表明鉴别人的标准是人心而非身份。因此，心理学家约翰·达利(John Darley)和C·丹尼尔·巴特森(C. Daniel Batson)希望对宗教信仰在助人行为上的影响进行测试。
他们的受试者是一组神学院学生，其中的一半给予“好撒马利亚人”的故事并要求他们在另一所神学院里布道，另一半则要求在同一地点对就业机会的问题进行布道。
作为额外的变量参照，受试者被要求在不同的时间内到达布道的地点，因此他们当中的一些人可能在路上会显得匆忙。
同时，在到达指定地点的途中，受试者将会经过一个瘫倒在小巷中的路人，看上去急需帮助。我们可能会认为达利与巴特森仅是就一些助人的随机现象作测试，但研究资料表明这位可怜的路人是事先安排好的，并且表现得十分逼真。
实验结果：相比那些准备演讲就业机会问题的学生，被给予“好撒马利亚人”故事的学生并没有因为寓言的教育意义而更多地伸出援手。真正起作用的因素竟然是他们在路上究竟有多匆忙。
事实上，假如时间紧迫，仅有10%的学生会停下来提供援助，即使他们即将布道的话题是停下来给予援助是多么地重要。然而平心而论，如果你在课上迟到了，教授会相信“路上我不得不停下来帮助一个受伤的旅客”的借口么？很可能不会，除非你能出示那个人沾满鲜血的衬衫作为证据。
结果分析：正如我们喜欢开玩笑时所说的那样，一个反同性恋的男议员可能被发现与一名男子共浴爱河，呼吁环保的美国前副总统戈尔(Al Gore)可能拥有一所能耗不菲的宅第…… ……而事实上，我们这些普通的民众与政客一样伪善。毕竟，与面对一个浑身散发恶臭甚至淌着鲜血的流浪汉相比，面对一众听者高谈阔论应该帮助陌生人显然更加容易。因此，即使指出他们的虚伪也难掩自身贩虚伪。
假如你认为这些研究结果仅限于伪善的神学院学生，那么请看看新闻。还记得数年前，摄影机拍下至少12辆车拒绝搭载躺在路边的受伤女子那一幕么？
也正如这些学生那样，他们总会有感到迫不得已的地方。司机或许还感到庆幸，因为自己仅仅是拐了个弯路过了她，而不是像车祸惨剧中那样压扁了她。
#3.
Bystander Apathy Experiment (1968)
The Setup:
When a woman was murdered in 1964, newspapers printed that 38 people had heard and seen the attack, but did nothing. John Darley and Bibb Latane wanted to know if the fact that these people were in a large group played any role in the reluctance to come to aid.
The two psychologists invited volunteers to take part in a discussion. They claimed that because the discussion would be extremely personal (probably asking about the size of their genitals or something) individuals would be separated in different rooms and talk to each other using an intercom.
During the conversation, one of the members would fake an epileptic seizure, which could be heard on the speakers. We're not completely sure how they conveyed over the intercom that what was happening was a seizure, but we're assuming the words "Wow this is quite an epileptic seizure I'm having" were uttered.
The Result:
When subjects believed that they were the only other person in the discussion, 85 percent were heroic enough to leave the room and seek help once the other began the fake seizure. This makes sense. Having an extremely personal conversation (again, presumably about tiny genitalia) with another person is difficult enough, but being forced to continue to carry on the conversation by yourself is just sad. But either way, 85 percent helped. So that's good, right?
Well, they weren't done. When the experiment was altered so that subjects believed four other people were in the discussion, only 31 percent went to look for help once the seizure began. The rest assumed someone else would take care of it. So the phrase, "The more, the merrier" somehow got lost in translation because the correct expression should be, "The more, the higher probability that you will die if you have a seizure."
Anyone can have epilepsy, according to this child's drawing 
What This Says About You:
Obviously if there's an emergency and you're the only one around, the pressure to help out increases massively. You feel 100 percent responsible for what happens. But, when you're with 10 other people, you're only 10 percent as responsible. The problem is everybody else only feels 10 percent responsible too.
This sheds some light on our previous examples. Maybe the drivers who swerved around the injured woman in the road would have stopped if they'd been alone on a deserted highway. Then again, maybe they'd be even more likely to abandon her since they know nobody is watching (unlike the people in the experiment, who at least knew there were others around to judge their actions).
Or maybe it comes down to just how plausible an excuse we can make for ourselves. "Surely someone will come along and save the lady in the road," we say. Or, "Surely someone else will do something about the environment," or "Surely the shark will get full and stop eating that dude at some point." We just need the slightest excuse to do nothing.
实验三、旁观者冷漠实验（1968）
实验步骤：在1964年的一起女子谋杀事件中，新闻报道称，现场有38个人亲眼目睹或者听见案件的发生却没有采取任何行动。约翰·达利(John Darley)和比伯·拉坦纳(Bibb Latane)希望通过研究验证，当人处于群体环境中时，是否就不愿意施以援手。
这两位心理学家邀请了一些志愿者参与了试验。他们告诉受试者，鉴于会谈可能涉及极其私人化的内容（诸如讨论生殖器的大小之类的话题），因此每个人将被分隔在不同的房间，仅使用对讲机来相互沟通。
在会谈中，一名参与人员将假装突然病发，当然这可被其他受试者所听见。我们并不完全确定此通话传达给他们的信息是对方发病，但我们确保诸如“噢我的癫痫发作了”之类的话将被受试者听到。
实验结果：当受试者认为除发病者外，他们是参与讨论的唯一一人，85%的人会在对方假装病发时自告奋勇地离开房间去寻求帮助。与另一个人进行一次非常私人化的会谈（再次强调，很可能提及生殖器官大小等问题）已属十分不易，相比之下，假如在剩下的时间里被迫一个人自言自语仅仅是可悲而已。但不管怎样，有85%的人愿意帮助；这一结果还不错，不是么？
但实验还没有结束。当实验环境发生转变，受试者认为还有另外四个人参与讨论时，只有31%的人在对方发病后寻求帮助，剩下的受试者猜测会有其他什么人去照顾此人。所以在某种程度上，“多多益善”这种词汇失去了其真意，更正确的表述应该是“多多益死”（人愈多的情况下，就有愈高的概率死于发病）。
结果分析：由此推及，在紧急情况下，假如你是当事人身边的唯一一个人，你参与援助的动力将大大增加，你将感觉到对此事具有100%的责任。然而，当你仅是10个人中的一个时，你将只感到10%的责任；问题在于，其他每个人也只感到10%的责任。
这便给我们之前的例子提供了解释。假如受伤的女子躺在荒无人烟的高速公路旁，原本视若无睹的司机可能更愿意停下来帮忙。题外话，当然他们也可能更愿意弃之不顾，因为他们知道无人在旁监督（这与本实验的受试者不同，因为至少受试者知道有人在记录和分析他们的举止）。 又或许，这个问题也可被归结于我们能为自己找到借口的合理性。我们会说，“显然，这条道上总会有人路过去救她的”。抑或，“显然，保护环境总会有人去做些什么的”或者“显然，鲨鱼总会饱的，所以到某个程度就不会吃他的”。我们只是需要为自己的不作为找一丁点的借口而已。
#2.
The Stanford Prison Experiment (1971) 
The Setup:
Psychologist Philip Zimbardo wanted to find out how captivity affects authorities and inmates in prison. Sounds innocent enough. Seriously, what could go wrong?
Zimbardo transformed the Stanford Psychology Department's basement into a mock prison. Subjects volunteered by simply responding to a newspaper ad ...
Not the actual ad
... and then passing a test proving good health and high-quality mental stability, which are very important factors in deciding who goes to prison. These volunteers were all male college students who were then divided arbitrarily into 12 guards and 12 prisoners. Zimbardo himself decided that he wanted to play too, and elected himself Prison Superintendent. The simulation was planned to run for two weeks.
Yep, nothing at all can go wrong with this.
The Result:
It took about one day for every subject to suddenly go as insane as a shit-house rat. On only the second day, prisoners staged a riot in the faux detention center, with prisoners barricading their cells with their beds and taunting the guards. The guards saw this as a pretty good excuse to start squirting fire extinguishers at the insurgents because, hey, why the hell not?
From that point on, the Stanford Prison that had already gone to hell, just continued to ricochet around in hell for day after day. Some guards began forcing inmates to sleep naked on the concrete, restricting the bathroom as a privilege (one that was often denied). They forced prisoners to do humiliating exercises and had them clean toilets with their bare hands.
Incredibly, when "prisoners" were told they had a chance at parole, and then the parole was denied, it didn't occur to them to simply ask out of the damned experiment. Remember they had absolutely no legal reason to be imprisoned, it was just a damned role-playing exercise. This fact continued to escape them as they sat naked in their own filth, with bags on their heads.
Over 50 outsiders had stopped to observe the prison, but the morality of the trial was never questioned until Zimbardo's girlfriend, Christina Maslach, strongly objected. After only six days, Zimbardo put a halt to the experiment (several of the "guards" expressed disappointment at this). If you were about to applaud Maslach as the only sane person involved in this clusterfuck, you should know that she went on to marry Zimbardo, the guy who orchestrated the whole thing.
What This Says About You:
Ever been harassed by a cop who acted like a major douchebag, pushing you around for no reason? Science says that if the roles were reversed, you'd likely act the same way.
As it turns out, it's usually fear of repercussion that keeps us from torturing our fellow human beings. Give us absolute power over somebody and a blank check from our superiors, and Abu Ghraib-esque naked pyramids are sure to follow. Hey, if it can happen to a bunch of Vietnam-era hippie college students, it sure as hell could happen to you.
实验二、斯坦福监狱（1971年）
实验步骤：心理学家菲利普·津巴多(Philip Zimbardo)希望研究监狱生活如何影响其中的警察与囚犯。这听起来够愚蠢的；问题在于，那会有什么问题吗？
津巴多将斯坦福大学心理系的地下室改建成了一个模拟监狱。仅通过报纸广告而来的志愿者均通过了身体健康和心理稳定测试，这些测试在筛选监狱实验的受试者中是至关重要的因素。这些受试者都是男性的大学生，被随机分布12名狱警和12名囚犯。津巴多自己也希望参与到实验中去，并且自己任命自己为监狱总监。此模拟监狱的实验仅仅持续了两周。
是的，关于这一点绝不会有任何问题。
实验结果：每个受试者都花费了一天左右的时间来适应这种生活，并开始变得疯狂。仅到第二天，囚犯便在这个人为设立的监狱里发起了暴乱，用床铺在牢房里设立障碍并讥笑狱警们。看到这一情形，狱警仿佛找到了向囚犯开火（事实上使用灭火器替代）的绝佳借口，嘿，见鬼的为什么不这么干？
至此开始，斯坦福监狱已经真的见鬼了，在这一地狱里日复一日地上演暴乱。一些狱警开始逼迫囚犯裸睡在水泥地上，并以限制浴室的使用作为特权（常常被剥夺的特权）相威胁。他们强迫囚犯做羞辱性的训练，并用双手去清洁马桶。
令人不可思议的是，当“囚犯”被告知他们有机会被假释、但假释申请又被驳回的情况下，他们并没有简单地要求终止这见鬼的实验。请记住，他们绝对没有因法律上的原因而被监禁，这仅仅是一个角色扮演的实验。这意味着，他们将继续赤身裸体地坐在自己的排泄物上，头上套着袋子。
有50名以上的非实验人员参与观察和关注这一监狱，然而道德的审判却从未遭到质疑，直到津巴多的女友克里丝蒂娜·马丝拉(Christina Maslach)提出强烈抗议。仅在此后6天，津巴多便终止了这一实验（几位“狱警”对此表示失望）。如果你想要就此称赞马丝拉是这一见鬼实验中唯一一位理智的人的话，那么你还应该知道的是，后来她便嫁给了策划这一实验的津巴多。
结果分析：这一结果表明，扮演囚犯的角色预谋造反，扮演狱警的角色则开始变得具有暴力倾向。难道说是因为扮演被暴动折磨的狱警们都是混账，不问情由地把人随意摆布吗？科学研究表明，假如角色互换，你也会采取同样的方式。
正如它所验证的那样，这通常是出于对方反击的恐惧使得我们对我们的人类同胞百般折磨。当我们比其他人拥有绝对权力或者来自上级的种种授意时，那么诸如阿布格莱布监狱中堆叠为裸体金字塔的事件（译者注：虐俘丑闻，某些囚犯曾被迫要求裸身堆叠成金字塔状）必将随之而来。嗯，假如这曾发生在那帮越战时期的嬉皮士大学生身上的话，那么总有一天，这也绝对会见鬼地发生在您的身上。
#1.
The Milgram Experiment (1961)
The Setup:
When the prosecution of the Nazis got underway at the Nuremberg Trials, many of the defendants' excuse seemed to revolve around the ideas of, "I'm not really a prick" and, "Hey man, I was just following orders." Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram wanted to test willingness of subjects to obey an authority figure. Maybe he could just, you know, ask people? Oh, hell no. That would not be nearly horrifying enough.
Instead he ran an experiment where the subject was told he was a "teacher" and that his job was to give a memory test to another subject, located in another room. The whole thing was fake and the other subject was an actor.
The subject was told that whenever the other guy gave an incorrect answer, he was to press a button that would give him an electric shock. A guy in a lab coat was there to make sure he did it (again no real shock was being delivered, but the subject of course did not know this).
The subject was told that the shocks started at 45 volts and would increase with every wrong answer. Each time they pushed the button, the actor on the other end would scream and beg for the subject to stop.
So, can you guess how this went?
The Result:
Many subjects began to feel uncomfortable after a certain point, and questioned continuing the experiment. However, each time the guy in the lab coat encouraged them to continue. Most of them did, upping the voltage, delivering shock after shock while the victim screamed. Many subjects would laugh nervously, because laughter is the best medicine when pumping electrical currents through another person's body.
Eventually the actor would start banging on the wall that separated him from the subject, pleading about his heart condition. After further shocks, all sounds from victim's room would cease, indicating he was dead or unconscious. If you had to guess, what percentage of the subjects kept delivering shocks after that point?
Five percent? Ten?
Between 61 and 66 percent of subjects would continue the experiment until it reached the maximum voltage of 450, continuing to deliver shocks after the victim had been zapped into unconsciousness or the afterlife. Repeated studies have shown the same result: Subjects will mindlessly deliver pain to an innocent stranger as long as a dude in a lab coat says it's OK.
Most subjects wouldn't begin to object until after 300-volt shocks. Zero of them asked to stop the experiment before that point (keep in mind 100 volts is enough to kill a man, in some cases).
What This Says About You: You might like to think of yourself as a free-thinking marauder, but when it comes down to it, odds are you won't stick it to The Man because of the fear The Man will stick it right back up your ass. And this was just a guy in a lab coat--imagine if he'd had a uniform, or a badge.
Charles Sheridan and Richard King took this experiment one step further, but asked subjects to shock a puppy for every incorrect action it made. Unlike Milgram's experiment, this shock was real. Exactly 20 out of 26 subjects went to the highest voltage.
Almost 80 percent. Think about that when you're walking around the mall: Eight out of ten of those people you see would torture the shit out of a puppy if a dude in a lab coat asked them to. 实验一、米尔格伦实验（1961年）
实验步骤：当屠杀犹太人的纳粹追随者在纽伦堡审判中遭到起诉时，许多被告的辩护似乎围绕着“我不是真正的凶手”这样的论点，认为“事实上，我只是单纯服从命令”。因此，耶鲁大学的心理学家米尔格伦(Stanley Milgram)希望就受试者对权威人物下达命令的服从意愿进行测试。或许你会以为，他只是向受试者询问？噢，那可不行；那还不够残忍。
与你所想象的不同，在米尔格伦所组织的实验中，受试者被告知将扮演“老师”的角色，所要做的是给隔壁房间的另一名受试者进行记忆力测试。事实上“另一名受试者”是由实验人员假冒的，这一切只是米尔格伦布置的一场局。
受试者被告知，只要对方给出了错误的答案，他将按下一个按钮，控制器将使隔壁的“学生”受到电击。此外，一名身穿实验室工作服的工作人员将在旁边作指导和监督（必须指出的是，并没有真正的电击发生，当然受试者并不知道这一情况）。
受试者还被告知，实验中的初始电击为45伏特，每逢作答错误，电压值将随之提升。受试者每次按下按钮，“学生”将在隔壁房间发出尖叫声，请求受试者停止测试。
那么，你可以预测一下实验将如何进行下去么？
实验结果：在实验进行到某一程度(如电击330伏特)时，许多受试者表示开始感到不舒服，并质疑是否继续实验。然而，穿实验室工作服的工作员对每一次的暂停请求都鼓励他们继续。在得到无须承担任何责任的保证后，大多数的受试者都选择了继续，提升电击电压，给予受害者一次又一次的电击。一些受试者则在听到“学生”的尖叫声后紧张得笑了出来；因为当电流传向另一个人的躯体却无能为力时，恐怕笑是最好的良药。
最终，隔壁的“学生”会开始痛苦地敲打墙壁，恳求检查自己的心脏状况。在电击继续提升后，来自“学生”房间的声音将突然消失，以暗示他已经死去或者失去知觉。假如你必须给出猜测，此后有多大比例的受试者将会继续给予电击呢？
5%？10%？
在“学生”可能已经陷入昏迷或者死亡的情况下，约61%至66%的受试者选择继续实验，直到电击达到最大电压450伏特。重复的实验研究表明了同一的结果：只要实验室里的那名工作人员认为没有问题，受试者将无意识地对一个无辜的陌生人施加痛苦。
大多数受试者在电击达到300伏特之前都不会提出质疑或反对，0%的受试者在此前要求停止实验（请注意，在某些情况下100伏特的电压就足以使人丧命）。
结果分析：你可能更乐于认为自己是一个自由思想的捍卫者，但是归根结底，关键还是在于“那个人”的想法是否足以令你坚持，这是源于身后的“那个人”总会令你坚持那些想法，即使那只是一个身穿实验室工作服的人——试想假如他身穿着制服或者佩戴着徽章将会如何。
查尔斯·谢里丹(Charles Sheridan)和理查德·金(Richard King)对此作了进一步的实验，但对受试者的要求变为，一旦某只幼犬做出不当举止即给予电击。与米尔格伦实验不同的是，这种电击是真实的。实验结果表明，26名受试者中有20位达到了最高电压值。
几乎高达80%。请想象一下，当你漫步在购物中心时——你周围有80%的人都愿意对一只小狗施以极端酷刑，只要一个穿着实验室工作服的人要求他们这样做。
另注：这个实验是历史上影响最大的10个实验之一
很多人质疑斯坦利这项实验的道德性，但是这项实验却取得了很好结果。斯坦利成功的证明了权威人士对一些普通人的重大影响。
斯坦利证明，如果权威人士告知人们去不停地旋转这个旋钮，他们会照做
没有评论:
发表评论