Sociologists: Telling You Stuff You Already Knew

To be fair, one could make the same criticism of most historians. But, here are two studies I've come across recently that I enjoyed, precisely because they confirm (in the solid, utterly unbreakable and undeniable proof of statistical sampling and experimental control groups!) stuff I already believe to be true. Really, I'm just a little jealous that historians don't get to run tricky experiments on people. Because I would be doing it all the time.

1) The first study examined the effects that a belief (or disbelief) in the meritocracy had on women subjected to gender discrimination. Women who experienced gender discrimination but didn't believe in meritocracy had higher levels of well-being after the event than those who did believe. Unsurprising. And, in the control group, those who didn't experience any discrimination and did believe in the meritocracy had higher levels of well-being. I'm just going to sum this up for future students as, if you believe in the meritocracy, it's because your life has been a big fucking cakewalk. I'm such a great teacher.

2) The second study, from a law review article on behavioralism I read a few weeks ago, examined people's reactions to watching other people be subjected to painful shocks when they answered various trivia questions incorrectly (this is, by the way, how I envision the comprehensive exam process working). In one group, the observers were allowed to give input into the process, in other words they were allowed to tell the shockers to use non-painful positive reinforcement stimuli instead in order to encourage the test subjects to learn and remember the material. When given this oopportunity, all the observers choose the positive reinforcement option (that's the part I actually find shocking). Their opinions of the test subjects afterwards were also positive, they found them likeable and intelligent and able to learn.

The second group of observers was given no option of input. They just had to watch the test subjects get shocked, painfully, repeatedly. At the end, their opinions were negative. They believed that the subjects were, essentially, to blame for their own pain -- they weren't smart enough or were refusing to prevent themselves from getting shocked. Basically, the conclusion is, if we feel like we can actually change something, we're more likely to have empathy for the victims, but if we feel like we can't do anything? We blame them for their own situation.

Confirming what we already knew, at least about Americans, but in a creepily scientific way.