monkey experiment meme

The Michigan Daily

One hundred and thirty-three years of editorial freedom

TikTok’s iterations on the Infinite Monkey Theorem

Share this:.

• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)

“A monkey hitting keys at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time will almost surely type or create a particular chosen text, such as the complete works of William Shakespeare.” That of course is the Infinite Monkey Theorem , a thought experiment that posits that it is the nature of random actions, if varied long enough, to create meaningful results. While it has existed for over a century , it’s only recently that the statistical scenario has become a meme amassing millions of views on TikTok . 

In the typical TikTok format of a wall of text against the creator’s face, an ominous ambiance plays while millions of users write out different possibilities for how the thought experiment could go. For the most part, these bits of writing place the viewer in a sterile laboratory where a team of scientists is tasked with observing and taking care of anywhere from one to infinite monkeys on a respective amount of typewriters. As mentioned in the theorem, the goal of this team is to see the complete works of William Shakespeare typed up by the monkeys hitting random keys. However, this resolution is rarely written out, as plots range from being caught in an infinite loop of only typing the script of “Romeo & Juliet” to the experiment descending into revolution or playing into already-existing memes on TikTok and the Internet as a whole. It is in these variations – the catalyst of meme culture — on the Monkey Theorem that make this particular trend so interesting.

Variation is what allows memes to exist. The term “meme” — coined by evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins — is essentially the unit of an idea. Memes function akin to how genes are passed, changed and mixed through generations and gene pools, a process so important to cultural development it has been studied at length . Internet memes are no exception to this. Jokes are created and, through the massive connecting power of the web, they find themselves reproduced, remixed and recycled. There’s a comparison here to the Infinite Monkey Theorem. The complete works of Shakespeare could possibly emerge from a similar variation of randomly-chosen infinite letters. However, there is a contrast as well. Memes are created and varied by people who are not going to be as random as theoretical typing monkeys would be. While Infinite Monkey Theorem memes are only going to stem from the theorem that came before, each successive letter typed by the monkeys does not factor in the previous letters . This issue is further compounded by the theorem in practice.

The Infinite Monkey Theorem has, in fact, been attempted in the past. Studies using code , mathematics and even giving typewriters to macaques in captivity have turned up varying results. While the former two theoretical models seem to hold up, the last experiment led to the destruction and desecration of the typewriter. However, the monkeys did eventually produce five pages of text primarily composed of five letters. Observers noticed the animals making a connection between tapping a symbol and having it reproduced on the page. Most TikToks go beyond this primitive behavior though, elevating their intelligence to something beyond the experiments . They assert that this variation will not produce pure randomness but something more — and in doing so, still support the essence of the Infinite Monkey Theorem. By turning the thought experiment into a meme, the endless variations that create more memes recreate a form of the Infinite Monkey Theorem on a larger level. Millions of primates typing on millions of keyboards will almost surely type a resolution to the infinite monkey theorem, or at least inspire just one more primate to write about them. 

Daily Arts Writer Saarthak Johri can be reached at [email protected] .

Related articles

[ditty id=484978]

Harry Harlow Theory & Rhesus Monkey Experiments in Psychology

Saul Mcleod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul Mcleod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

Harlow (1958 wanted to study the mechanisms by which newborn rhesus monkeys bond with their mothers.

These infants depended highly on their mothers for nutrition, protection, comfort, and socialization.  What, exactly, though, was the basis of the bond?

The learning theory of attachment suggests that an infant would form an attachment with a carer who provides food. In contrast, Harlow explained that attachment develops due to the mother providing “tactile comfort,” suggesting that infants have an innate (biological) need to touch and cling to something for emotional comfort.

Harry Harlow did a number of studies on attachment in rhesus monkeys during the 1950’s and 1960″s.  His experiments took several forms:

Cloth Mother vs. Wire Mother Experiment

Experiment 1.

Harlow (1958) separated infant monkeys from their mothers immediately after birth and placed in cages with access to two surrogate mothers, one made of wire and one covered in soft terry toweling cloth.

In the first group, the terrycloth mother provided no food, while the wire mother did, in the form of an attached baby bottle containing milk.

Both groups of monkeys spent more time with the cloth mother (even if she had no milk).  The infant would only go to the wire mother when hungry. Once fed it would return to the cloth mother for most of the day.  If a frightening object was placed in the cage the infant took refuge with the cloth mother (its safe base).

This surrogate was more effective in decreasing the youngster’s fear.  The infant would explore more when the cloth mother was present.

This supports the evolutionary theory of attachment , in that the sensitive response and security of the caregiver are important (as opposed to the provision of food).

Experiment 2

Harlow (1958) modified his experiment and separated the infants into two groups: the terrycloth mother which provided no food, or the wire mother which did.

All the monkeys drank equal amounts and grew physically at the same rate. But the similarities ended there. Monkeys who had soft, tactile contact with their terry cloth mothers behaved quite differently than monkeys whose mothers were made out of hard wire.

The behavioral differences that Harlow observed between the monkeys who had grown up with surrogate mothers and those with normal mothers were;

• They were much more timid.
• They didn’t know how to act with other monkeys.
• They were easily bullied and wouldn’t stand up for themselves.
• They had difficulty with mating.
• The females were inadequate mothers.

These behaviors were observed only in the monkeys left with the surrogate mothers for more than 90 days.

For those left less than 90 days, the effects could be reversed if placed in a normal environment where they could form attachments.

Rhesus Monkeys Reared in Isolation

Harlow (1965) took babies and isolated them from birth. They had no contact with each other or anybody else.

He kept some this way for three months, some for six, some for nine and some for the first year of their lives. He then put them back with other monkeys to see what effect their failure to form attachment had on behavior.

The results showed the monkeys engaged in bizarre behavior, such as clutching their own bodies and rocking compulsively. They were then placed back in the company of other monkeys.

To start with the babies were scared of the other monkeys, and then became very aggressive towards them. They were also unable to communicate or socialize with other monkeys. The other monkeys bullied them. They indulged in self-mutilation, tearing hair out, scratching, and biting their own arms and legs.<!–

In addition, Harlow created a state of anxiety in female monkeys which had implications once they became parents. Such monkeys became so neurotic that they smashed their infant’s face into the floor and rubbed it back and forth.

Harlow concluded that privation (i.e., never forming an attachment bond) is permanently damaging (to monkeys).

The extent of the abnormal behavior reflected the length of the isolation. Those kept in isolation for three months were the least affected, but those in isolation for a year never recovered from the effects of privation.

Conclusions

Studies of monkeys raised with artificial mothers suggest that mother-infant emotional bonds result primarily from mothers providing infants with comfort and tactile contact, rather than just fulfilling basic needs like food.

Harlow concluded that for a monkey to develop normally s/he must have some interaction with an object to which they can cling during the first months of life (critical period).

Clinging is a natural response – in times of stress the monkey runs to the object to which it normally clings as if the clinging decreases the stress.

He also concluded that early maternal deprivation leads to emotional damage but that its impact could be reversed in monkeys if an attachment was made before the end of the critical period .

However, if maternal deprivation lasted after the end of the critical period, then no amount of exposure to mothers or peers could alter the emotional damage that had already occurred.

Harlow found, therefore, that it was social deprivation rather than maternal deprivation that the young monkeys were suffering from.

When he brought some other infant monkeys up on their own, but with 20 minutes a day in a playroom with three other monkeys, he found they grew up to be quite normal emotionally and socially.

The Impact of Harlow’s Research

Harlow’s research has helped social workers to understand risk factors in child neglect and abuse such as a lack of comfort (and so intervene to prevent it).

Using animals to study attachment can benefit children who are most at risk in society and can also have later economic implications, as those children are more likely to grow up to be productive members of society.

Ethics of Harlow’s Study

Harlow’s work has been criticized.  His experiments have been seen as unnecessarily cruel (unethical) and of limited value in attempting to understand the effects of deprivation on human infants.

It was clear that the monkeys in this study suffered from emotional harm from being reared in isolation.  This was evident when the monkeys were placed with a normal monkey (reared by a mother), they sat huddled in a corner in a state of persistent fear and depression.

Harlow’s experiment is sometimes justified as providing a valuable insight into the development of attachment and social behavior. At the time of the research, there was a dominant belief that attachment was related to physical (i.e., food) rather than emotional care.

It could be argued that the benefits of the research outweigh the costs (the suffering of the animals).  For example, the research influenced the theoretical work of John Bowlby , the most important psychologist in attachment theory.

It could also be seen as vital in convincing people about the importance of emotional care in hospitals, children’s homes, and daycare.

Harlow, H. F., Dodsworth, R. O., & Harlow, M. K. (1965). Total social isolation in monkeys . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 54 (1), 90.

Harlow, H. F. & Zimmermann, R. R. (1958). The development of affective responsiveness in infant monkeys . Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 102 ,501 -509.

Related Articles

Famous Experiments , Social Science

Solomon Asch Conformity Line Experiment Study

Famous Experiments , Learning Theories

Bandura’s Bobo Doll Experiment on Social Learning

Famous Experiments

John Money Gender Experiment: Reimer Twins

Famous Experiments , Child Psychology

Van Ijzendoorn & Kroonenberg: Cultural Variations in Attachment

Dement and Kleitman (1957)

Henry Gustav Molaison: The Curious Case of Patient H.M. 

Stack Exchange Network

Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow , the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.

Q&A for work

Connect and share knowledge within a single location that is structured and easy to search.

Was the experiment with five monkeys, a ladder, a banana and a water spray conducted?

I've found the following picture online. It is about the moral/paradigm behind consistent behavior.

Click to enlarge.

The image text says

A group of scientists placed 5 monkeys in a cage and in the middle, a ladder with bananas on the top. Every time a monkey went up the ladder, the scientists soaked the rest of the monkeys with cold water. After a while, every time a monkey went up the ladder, the others beat up the one on the ladder. After some time, no monkey dare[d] to go up the ladder regardless of the temptation. Scientists then decided to substitute one of the monkeys. The 1 st thing this new monkey did was to go up the ladder. Immediately the other monkeys beat him up. After several beatings, the new member learned not to climb the ladder even though he never knew why. A 2 nd monkey was substituted and the same occurred. The 1 st monkey participated on [ sic ] the beating for [ sic ] the 2 nd monkey. A 3 rd monkey was changed and the same was repeated (beating). The 4 th was substituted and the beating was repeated and finally the 5 th monkey was replaced. What was left was a group of 5 monkeys that even though never received a cold shower, continued to beat up any monkey who attempted to climb the ladder. If it was possible to ask the monkeys why they would beat up all those who attempted to go up the ladder ... I bet you the answer would be ... "I don't know — that's how things are done around here" Does it sound familiar? Don't miss the opportunity to share this with others as they might be asking themselves why we continue to do what we are doing if there is a different way out there.

This seems like an experiment, but now I'm wondering... Was this experiment ever conducted? If not, was any similar experiment conducted that shows the same effect?

• 13 There were several positive negative reinforcement experiments performed but this sounds like an extrapolation of predicted results combined with humanized responses. This story makes it sound like negative reinforcement alone can trigger this powerful anti social group behavior. Its a myth –  Chad Commented Nov 4, 2011 at 18:31
• 16 You are probably anyway not allowed to do this kind of tests on monkeys any more. Nowadays you would need to use interns etc. –  Martin Scharrer Commented Apr 12, 2012 at 9:16
• 34 You need ten monkeys. . . –  Rory Alsop Commented Mar 28, 2013 at 13:27
• 33 Actually they seem to me like pretty darn smart monkeys. This effect is how humans avoid many dangers to astonishing levels of reliability, like traffic, poisonous berries, bad puns, and esoteric discussions. Oh wait. –  Bob Stein Commented Jul 26, 2013 at 10:53
• 23 What @BobStein-VisiBone said. This story is told to show how people follow traditions mindlessly. But the monkeys are helping each other avoid a bad outcome. The consequences may be capricious (the researchers could stop spraying water), but the monkeys don't know that. If the contraindicated activity were eating poisonous mushrooms, we wouldn't think the monkeys were clever for occasionally eating some to make sure they were still lethal. Perhaps the real message of this thought experiment is that a tradition can have a good reason behind it, even if we've forgotten what that reason is? –  Kyralessa Commented Jan 21, 2016 at 0:42

2 Answers 2

The earliest mention I could find of this experiment was in the popular business/self-help book, Competing for the future by Gary Hamel and C. K. Prahalad (1996). Here is the quote from the book:

4 monkeys in a room. In the center of the room is a tall pole with a bunch of bananas suspended from the top. One of the four monkeys scampers up the pole and grabs the bananas. Just as he does, he is hit with a torrent of cold water from an overhead shower. He runs like hell back down the pole without the bananas. Eventually, the other three try it with the same outcome. Finally, they just sit and don’t even try again. To hell with the damn bananas. But then, they remove one of the four monkeys and replace him with a new one. The new monkey enters the room, spots the bananas and decides to go for it. Just as he is about to scamper up the pole, the other three reach out and drag him back down. After a while, he gets the message. There is something wrong, bad or evil that happens if you go after those bananas. So, they kept replacing an existing monkey with a new one and each time, none of the new monkeys ever made it to the top. They each got the same message. Don’t climb that pole. None of them knew exactly why they shouldn’t climb the pole, they just knew not to. They all respected the well established precedent. EVEN AFTER THE SHOWER WAS REMOVED! ( Source )

The authors did not provide a source for this claim. This story was later repeated in various other popular business/self-help books.

Every source online I could find erroneously attributed the experiment to one of the above authors. No one, anywhere , seems to have a reference to the actual experiment.

C. K. Prahalad is deceased, but Gary Hamel is still alive. I tried contacting him several times, but unfortunately both he and his secretary were very evasive. The best I could get was

Our apologies, but Professor Hamel does not have the original source information at hand in terms of your request.

Given that there seems to be no evidence anywhere of this experiment ever actually taking place, that all trails of references eventually lead to the claim in this book, and that this is the earliest available mention of the experiment, until further evidence becomes available the most reasonable conclusion is that C. K. Prahalad or Gary Hamel made up the experiment for their book.

Even if the above authors were not the creators of the myth, there is still reason to believe that, as @Chad puts it (comments above), this claim is an "extrapolation of predicted results combined with humanized responses."

Here is a quote from an "anthropology professor who's worked with hundreds of monkeys over the last 30 years." When asked what he thought of the experiment, he responded succinctly with:

If you have bananas on a pole, you'll lose your bananas.

• 27 That last quote is interesting, I'm still wondering what Gary Hamel has to say about that. –  Tamara Wijsman Commented Nov 4, 2011 at 21:06
• 5 @Tom: see edit. I've given up trying to contact him. Perhaps if more people ask , we can get a better response. –  BlueRaja - Danny Pflughoeft Commented Nov 28, 2011 at 18:47
• 225 Followup question: if 4 more people replied that it's not a real experiment, would the next person reply without even bothering to do the research? –  JeffSahol Commented Aug 5, 2013 at 17:58
• 17 The human version of this experiment: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments –  Pacerier Commented Jul 3, 2015 at 10:59
• 50 It's not a real experiment. Source: everyone else told me it wasn't real when I got here. –  Dan Henderson Commented Oct 11, 2015 at 16:47

TL;DR: It sounds like a similar monkey experiment did take place, and the results were similar to that presented in the picture, but if this is the same experiment, most of the details are wrong.

The first google result for monkeys ladder experiment contains to the following information:

Stephenson (1967) trained adult male and female rhesus monkeys to avoid manipulating an object and then placed individual naïve animals in a cage with a trained individual of the same age and sex and the object in question. In one case, a trained male actually pulled his naïve partner away from the previously punished manipulandum during their period of interaction, whereas the other two trained males exhibited what were described as "threat facial expressions while in a fear posture" when a naïve animal approached the manipulandum. When placed alone in the cage with the novel object, naïve males that had been paired with trained males showed greatly reduced manipulation of the training object in comparison with controls. Unfortunately, training and testing were not carried out using a discrimination procedure so the nature of the transmitted information cannot be determined, but the data are of considerable interest.

Sources: Stephenson, G. R. (1967). Cultural acquisition of a specific learned response among rhesus monkeys. In: Starek, D., Schneider, R., and Kuhn, H. J. (eds.), Progress in Primatology, Stuttgart: Fischer, pp. 279-288.

Mentioned in: Galef, B. G., Jr. (1976). Social Transmission of Acquired Behavior: A Discussion of Tradition and Social Learning in Vertebrates. In: Rosenblatt, J.S., Hinde, R.A., Shaw, E. and Beer, C. (eds.), Advances in the study of behavior, Vol. 6, New York: Academic Press, pp. 87-88.

The above quote is found on page 88 of the 1976 document quoted above .

It is possible the claim is referring to this experiment, with diverging details, or that another experiment took place that was closer to the details in the claim.

• 14 @BlueRaja-DannyPflughoeft, after reading the paper link bellow, it does look like the beginning of the described experiment; learning passed on. It does fail to join all subjects that haven't interacted with the object and have them pass their knowledge to their fellow kin. I would say the folloing 'anecdote' uses the basis for this experiment and greatly builds upon it. The answer to the OP would be NO, it hasn't. scribd.com/doc/73492989/… –  Frankie Commented Apr 15, 2013 at 18:30
• 4 Stephenson's paper: erikbuys.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/… . –  amoeba Commented Sep 14, 2017 at 9:41

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for browse other questions tagged psychology behavior memory morality ..

• Featured on Meta
• Upcoming sign-up experiments related to tags

Hot Network Questions

• Does it matter to de-select faces before going back to Object Mode?
• Movie with a gate guarded by two statues
• What camera could I mount or rig to my bike that can read/recognize license plates
• To whom did the neogrammarians react?
• Are there any well-known mathematicians who were marxists?
• Are there good examples of regular life being theory-laden?
• Would killing 444 billion humans leave any physical impact on Earth that's measurable?
• How did the Terminator recognize Sarah at Tech Noir?
• Why is my bike clunky, and what is this loose string?
• What would happen to 'politicians' in this world?
• Did the NES CPU save die area by omitting BCD?
• Is there a second-order non-linear addition to Maxwell's equations?
• biblatex language="EN"
• Reviewers do not live up to own quality standards
• Are many figures in a paper considered bad practice?
• Need to extend B2 visa status but dad is in a coma
• Do rich parents pay less in child support if they didn't provide a rich lifestyle for their family pre-divorce?
• Bibliographic references: “[19,31-33]”, “[33,19,31,32]” or “[33], [19], [31], [32]”?
• Why was the SNES color gamut RGB?
• How to make a low-poly version of a ramen bowl?
• LTCGY - Let the corners guide you
• Checking if a certain fragment is located earlier in the document
• "Could" at the beginning of a non-question sentence
• Probably a nit: "openssl x509" displays the serial number sometimes as octet string, sometimes as integer

where monkey Meme Generator

The fastest meme generator on the planet. easily add text to images or memes..

Featured where monkey Memes See All

What is the Meme Generator?

It's a free online image maker that lets you add custom resizable text, images, and much more to templates. People often use the generator to customize established memes , such as those found in Imgflip's collection of Meme Templates . However, you can also upload your own templates or start from scratch with empty templates.

How to make a meme

• Add customizations. Add text, images, stickers, drawings, and spacing using the buttons beside your meme canvas.
• Create and share. Hit "Generate Meme" and then choose how to share and save your meme. You can share to social apps or through your phone, or share a link, or download to your device. You can also share with one of Imgflip's many meme communities.

How can I customize my meme?

• You can add special image effects like posterize, jpeg artifacts, blur, sharpen, and color filters like grayscale, sepia, invert, and brightness.
• You can remove our subtle imgflip.com watermark (as well as remove ads and supercharge your image creation abilities) using Imgflip Pro or Imgflip Pro Basic .

Can I use the generator for more than just memes?

Yes! The Meme Generator is a flexible tool for many purposes. By uploading custom images and using all the customizations, you can design many creative works including posters, banners, advertisements, and other custom graphics.

Can I make animated or video memes?

Yes! Animated meme templates will show up when you search in the Meme Generator above (try "party parrot"). If you don't find the meme you want, browse all the GIF Templates or upload and save your own animated template using the GIF Maker .

Do you have a wacky AI that can write memes for me?

Funny you ask. Why yes, we do. Here you go: imgflip.com/ai-meme (warning, may contain vulgarity)

That “Five Monkeys Experiment” Never Happened

You may have seen this story about the Five Monkeys Experiment recently:

Apparently it  is supposed to describe a real scientific experiment that was performed on a group of monkeys, and it is supposed to raise profound questions about our tendency to unquestioningly follow the herd. Unfortunately it is complete and utter nonsense, because no such experiment ever happened.

Ironically, so many people are sharing this unverified pseudoscientific gibberish that it really does reveal our tendency to unthinkingly follow the herd; after all, why would you bother verifying an article about monkeys that literally has the tag line “think before you follow”?

This story has been doing the rounds since 1996, and it has never been verified. It seems to have first appeared in a book called  Competing For The Future  by Gary Hamel and C. K. Prahalad, and by “appeared” I mean it was just made up. The authors never provided a source. None of the authors who have referred to the experiment in the past eighteen years have provided a source either. None of the appealing memes or infographics that describe the story now provide a source. Suffice to say, there is no source, because the experiment never happened.

(I got some of this information from an internet chatroom, posted by a guy called BlueRaja.  If you would like to check up on what I have said, you can do that.)

The article has gained popularity recently because it appeared in a TED Talk by some guy called Eddie Obeng,* showing once again that TED Talks are responsible for the spread of intellectual garbage and superficially appealing, hyperbolic misinformation. A blogger by the name of John Stepper writes about how amazing the Talk was and how Eddie was able to bring this untrue story to life. He then asks if it really happened, and says:

“A quick search reveals it did happen though the details are quite different.”

This is perfectly true, if by “quite different” he really means “not the same at all, in any way.”

Stepper’s “proof” that it happened “a little differently” is an article by G.R. Stephenson called  Cultural Acquisition Of A Specific Learned Response Among Rhesus Monkeys (1966).  The very existence of a scientific-sounding source seems to be enough to lend this ‘experiment’ some credibility (it’s got a big name and a date and everything) but all you need to do is read the experiment yourself to see that it has absolutely nothing to do with this ‘fable’ at all. They may as well have provided this as a source:

Did Stephenson put five monkeys in a room and spray them with water if they climbed up a ladder to reach a banana? Of course not.

As you can see, the experiment is different in just a couple of minor ways:

• Stephenson wanted to know if a learned behaviour in one monkey could induce a lasting effect on a second monkey. He was not making a study of group dynamics or herd behaviour at all.
• He examined four sets of unisexual monkey pairs, not five random monkeys in a group.
• The objects he used were plastic kitchen utensils, not a banana.
• The type of punishment was an air blast, not a water blast.
• There was no ladder- the object was just placed at one end of a controlled area.

To summarise, nothing about this real experiment is the same as the story. Nothing at all.

And what were the actual results of this barely relevant, totally different experiment?

Oops…

So in some pairs the new ‘naive’ monkey did learn to fear the object after seeing how the conditioned monkey was afraid of it. However, in other pairs, the fearless behaviour of the naive monkey ended up teaching the conditioned one not to fear the object anymore. Note that this is exactly the wrong type of evidence for a charming story about “following the herd”.

Curiously, the results were gender-specific: in three male-paired cases the learned behaviour was transferred, in three female-paired cases it was not, and in two it was inconclusive. The female monkeys seemed to learn behaviours simply by observation (including cases in which the punished monkey learned that there would be no more air blasts by watching the new monkey play with the object). The male pairs behaved differently, tending to teach a behaviour physically. The punished monkey actively admonished the newer one by pulling them away from the object.

The sample size is small and no bullshit should be inferred.

Unfortunately, a few decades after this study was published some moronic self-help author read it and thought “it’s almost good, but if I make it much more sensational and implausible, I will sell a lot of books! Though I don’t have any real truths, I can help people by showing them essential truths I’ve just made up!” And then you read it on Facebook, and thousands of people shared it, believing it to be true.

It’s one thing to share a meme because it sounds cool. We have all done it, myself included, even though it is a truly terrible misuse of our intelligence and most of us would not want our children to be mindlessly repeating hearsay and gossip because it sounds cool.

However, I can’t help but wonder how a blogger like John Stepper can be so smitten by the power of rhetoric that after hearing this implausible story about five monkeys he tries to validate it by referring to an unrelated study, and decides that “the details are a bit different.” No John, the details are not a bit different, they are so different that it makes your “evidence” irrelevant. Without evidence, you are just helping to spread misinformation. Please, please use your brain.

In fact, everybody, please stop sharing articles like this. It doesn’t take long to find out if something is true. This is one of the things our years of secondary (and perhaps tertiary) education were supposed to teach us: think before you follow!

Now, if only there was a cool story about some scientific-sounding thing I could quote to give my rant a bit more substance…

*UPDATE: As Eddie Obeng points out in the comments below, I was incorrect in saying that he delivered this story at a TED Talk. He definitely did not use cutesy projected graphics to relay uplifting platitudes to an audience of gullible twats at a TED event- he did it at JiveWorld instead, which is probably completely different.

He also insists it is a fable, not a story about a real experiment. This is probably why he introduces it as   “an experiment I came across; apparently a group of researchers were looking at behaviour. What they did was, they got five monkeys…”

• ← Hubert Parry Fans Outraged By Shocking Article
• In Honour Of The Synecdoche →

77 thoughts on “ That “Five Monkeys Experiment” Never Happened ”

Ironic that the circulating “experiment” is about thinking and not just following the herd and yet people follow the herd in sharing it without checking its validity.

Maybe that was the point.

If you really want to scream, when I just googled “monkey banana ladder,” the first three hits were claims that the experiment actually took place, including this answer:

http://www.answers.com/Q/Did_the_monkey_banana_and_water_spray_experiment_ever_take_place

which only a the end says, “Well, it seems to be true; not in the exact shape that it took here, but close enough.”

It was only beginning with the fourth result in my Google search, an article from Psychology Today , that the debunking of the fiction seemed to begin.

Close enough!? Honestly, what happens in peoples minds when they read these things? I hope my article does something to combat this.

I couldn’t help myself, Virgil. I signed up to Answers.com just so I could edit that page. I wonder how long it will be before someone changes it again?

You’re a hero for truth and science, Chad.

And, who knows, maybe if you stick with that Answers.com account, you can get to be one of those Experts you should follow I see on the right-hand side of the page. They could probably use some new expertise on ties. 😉

Virgil! What happened to your Twitter account?

i suppose its time to do the experiment

Shame you didn’t check your facts. There is no reference to the 5 monkeys in any of my TED talks. Plus anyone with any brains knows a fable from researched material. When Aesop wrote about a fox jumping for grapes only an idiot would believe the fox spoke… I bet you won’t publish this comment

I believe you are correct. John Stepper describes the speech you gave at Jiveworld, not TED. I can’t argue with a fact!

Sadly, many people have not responded to this story as if it is a fable. My frustration is partly because I also expect them to do so. I have edited the Answers.com page about this experiment several times because someone kept changing my answer back to “the experiment was real but slightly different.” Do a quick google search and you will see that almost every reference to this assumes that it really happened.

Also, is it not slightly disingenuous to say that everyone everyone will know this story is a fable when it begins with “scientists did this experiment…” I don’t know how you tell the story, but I doubt you begin with “this isn’t true in any way, in fact there is real evidence that contradicts it completely, but it’s a great story anyway.”

The best part of Eddie’s vitriolic rebuttal is that a simple google search of ‘eddie obeng’ and ‘5 monkeys’ gives me a youtube video where he makes an impassioned 2 minute account of the story.

There is an assumption that, when you tell an anecdote, it has at least some basis in reality. Parroting unsupported statements without fact checking them first is commonly referred to as ‘spreading bull****’ around here.

Defending a tenous position with an aggressive rant certainly doesn’t help your image either. The comparison to Aesop’s fable is outright disingenuous and misleading – as throwcase also mentions!

All matter is a mirror that reflects light and creates images of that light. I’m glad to hear your response Eddie Obeng. Many teachers use analogy and fable to present relationships between the immeasurable (mystery) and the measurable (science). Our current culture is dominated by the “religion” of science and such paradigms prevent many from feeling the truth of messages delivered. Kepler, Copernicus and Galileo were ridiculed and claimed as heretics by the religions of the time. Similar actions are happening in this day and age. What was the driving force behind trying to prove or disprove the existence of a story with a beautiful message? The story of the monkeys in a cage shows what happens when minds listen to what they think they know and teach others lies of how to be in the world. Can others see what is shown in the story about the story of the monkeys? Can we see the mirrors of life showing us our mind being reflected to us? Thank you Eddie Obeng for sharing your wonderful story. Thank you all for showing us how the teaching of the story plays out in our world.

Interesting that you bring up Kepler, Copernicus, and Galileo; these three men were not content with the “beautiful stories” of their time, because they could see evidence that suggested otherwise.

What are you praising them for if you don’t like the spirit of evidence-based, truth-seeking scientific inquiry?

Also, is it not odd to criticise the “paradigm” generated by a scientific “religion” if you then fervently believe in a story that claims to be based on a scientific experiment?

This is a good example of anti-intellecutualism thats persisted since we could rationalise.

Great piece and comment arguments! I’m SO glad I found it before I wrote about that story on my blog! Part of the problem is, it really does sound like it is true, because those of us who attempt to dispel the myth makers experience these “beatings” more often than not.

I know what you mean! Glad you liked it

Makes you sort of wonder why, after all this, someone hasn’t actually run the experiment then. it’s not so difficult, right?

Indeed I would love to see it

If it hasn’t happened so far, it certainly won’t be happening today, at least not officially. Ethics is the ”problem”.

Slavoj Zizek in his article named psychologist Harry Harlow as a conducter of this experiment. I don’t think that a guy like Zizek would write something without checking it first, let alone make the whole thing up.

So where is the proof? You can believe hearsay, I will believe proof. I have heard people making the Harlow claim before- I checked through all of his published papers and not one sounds remotely like this experiment. If you can find it, I will happily eat my words.

Also, what Zizek article do you refer to? I have done a quick search and can’t find it. Do you have a link?

Well, of course, if it cant be proven with Google, it doesnt exist. Coz they didnt actually record all of their experiments on tape, and if they dont have PROOF other than their own credentials as professionals and doctors… I wonder, do you require such physical, recordable proof for all the beliefs of science you hold dear? I have no proof of any of Freud’s work, so perhaps I should discredit him. I have no proof of Darwins actual research, perhaps he made it all up. If you desire such proof from experiments that were made when we didnt have such a plethora of physical records and recording devices, then most of the knowledge we function on should be discredited.

To your questions I answer an absolutely unequivocal yes. I, much like the entire scientific profession, do require proof in order to believe a scientific claim.

It is incredible that you mention Freud, because a century of scientific research has in fact discredited much of what he wrote and theorised. So that is an excellent point for my argument. Thanks.

Also with Darwin, all his evidence was catalogued and subsequently researched further, which would not have been possible if it had simply been made up. In fact, Origin Of the Species is a very boring book, because it is so relentlessly factual and evidence based. So again you make an excellent point for the value of scientific proof.

In the absence of a physical or written record or experiment one should at least be able to repeat the experiment and get the same result. This has never been done for this so called monkey “experiment” and if it were to be done I am certain the result would not be the one claimed here.

I appreciate your interest for science and the tenacity you provide in defending the idea of “no proof – didn’t happen”. I also appreciate you are indeed educated and you do your homework before posting about a subject. However, I despise the lack of respect you show to people that have a different opinion. You can make your point without being sarcastic. Now, in regard to your beliefs, I think that someone once said that only a fool is absolutely sure about something. So, you are absolutely sure about this experiment, never actually took place? Just because there is no record of any kind of it? Well, sir, please tell me how do you know that the shape of our galaxy pictured everywhere, is the real one? Do we have a probe, o space ship of any form, outside our galaxy, far enough to actually take that picture? If not, do we have enough data to map our entire galaxy precisely? It’s just one example that comes to mind… In regard to the monkeys, you may be right: the experiment may have never took place. But the absence of proof, does not necessary implies the absence of the event itself… Probable cause? Animal cruelty. This would not have been an experiment that gives results that benefits humans to justify beating up the monkeys. So, if I did it anyway, why should I publicly admit to it? It would have been a pure psychological experiment. So, why record it? Just sayin’… Thank you for taking the time to read this!

“So, you are absolutely sure about this experiment, never actually took place? Just because there is no record of any kind of it? ”

Yes. The bare minimum required of a scientific proof is that it can be demonstrated. Existing is indeed a great demonstration.

“Well, sir, please tell me how do you know that the shape of our galaxy pictured everywhere, is the real one? ”

I don’t. I never said I did. I presume, like all lasting scientific models and theories, that it is the best guess we have based on the observable evidence.

“But the absence of proof, does not necessary implies the absence of the event itself… ”

That is exactly what it implies. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Without proof, it is just a claim, no more. Your theory about animal cruelty is logical, but unnecessary. We do not need to multiply explanations as to why there is no record of this experiment- there is no record because it never happened.

Also, there were very many experiments done in the 20th century that were avidly cruel and unashamedly so. For example, the work of Harlow and his “rape rack.” So even if your explanation was needed, it would be unconvincing anyway.

B.F. Skinner mentions something almost identical in Walden Two, his utopian novel: a herd of sheep that never approach a fence even after it has ceased to be electrified. I think the relevance of that episode to the rest of the book is that structures taken for granted might simply be ingrained, and not necessarily useful (kind of a prerequisite for any utopia, it appears near the beginning and I guess it sets the scene), but I’m not sure what its scientific basis is, if any. Skinner has not been wholly innocent of purveying dodgy ideas. Maybe that’s where they got it from.

Fascinating! Thanks for this comment. I had no idea B.F Skinner wrote a novel at all, and the little I have just read about it has piqued my interest greatly. It is entirely possible that this is indeed where others got the idea from.

Love your blog – entertaining and informative! One of my earlier gigs was playing in a circus band, the kind with elephants and other animals. Once in Thunder Bay, ON we had the elephants inside of the building overnight (a curling rink) in the same area as the trailers where people were staying. it was April and too cold to stay outside. In between them and the people was a single shoestring thick cord wrapped around the support beams making an impromptu corral. I inquired and was reassured that since they had previously been in such enclosures with electrified barrier cords, they never bothered to test their limits and go beyond them. On the second night we were there, our MD felt his trailer (a tiny two-toned brown Boler we called the hamburger) start to shake. Our MD Ross opened his window curtain and saw this big elephant eye blinking at him, just like the scene from Jurassic Park. But I guess these elephants didn’t about read the monkey experiment or B.F. Skinner.

Brilliant! That’s possibly my favourite comment ever

Well I hate to be that dumb monkey to say this, but the experiment isn’t about 5 monkeys is it? Isn’t it about a planet filled with monkeys? The story about the 5 monkeys looks more like a banana to me.. And we can pretend for the arguments sake that you are the coldshower Throwcase 😀

Just for the arguments sake! It is after all “a mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” –

To test theories it’s almost always better to use unknowing subjects. Much more of a natural atmosphere. But also, if you tell a human being that he’s a monkey, he will more likely then not, take it as an insult. The monkey get’s pissed and walks away, and you have a monkey experiment with no monkeys. Better is to use yourself as the monkey/banana to play dumb and let smarter monkeys do the hard work. All you have to do is to rattle the cage. Depending mainly on how much frustration the dumb monkey is presenting to the others, determines if the experiment is a success or not. low amount of frustration = nobody cares. high amount of frustration = Many cares. Rattle to much and people will want to kill you. Proof? Mention the name Beiber on your social media and you’ll go: “Oh I see what you’re talking about. LOL!”

This Tactic is used a lot in corporate espionage and journalism to gather information and secrets.

“You’ve got to play fool to catch wise sometimes” – Old Jamaican proverb

Have a great day Throwcase, was really fun and interesting to read your Aristotle! And thanks for turning me from a dumb monkey into a sneaky Elephant 😉

Cheerio friend!

But even if it were true, doesn’t it show the exact opposite of what it should?

If every time a monkey goes up the ladder, something bad happens to all the monkeys, then it makes sense to stop monkeys from going up the ladder.

And after all the monkeys have ben replaced, how are they supposed to know that the bad thing won’t continue to happen if one of them goes up the ladder?

So stopping the new monkeys form going up the ladder, far from being stupid like the story presents it as, is actually absolutely sensible.

It’s only because we know that the experimenters won’t give the cold shower that it looks stupid to us, looking on from outside. But how are the monkeys supposed to know that? From their point of view it’s totally sensible to stop monkeys climbing the ladder.

It looks to me like a prime example of Chesterton’s fence.

Excellent point, and I am glad to be introduced to the idea of Chesterton’s fence- thanks!

@Q I am not sure when you say that the experiment, if true, would prove the opposite? What do you mean “opposite”. I think if it were true, it would indeed prove the existence of herd behavior. It’s just that it would also show, that in some cases, herd behavior actually makes sense. At least to the participants! But indeed there are many cases where herd behavior demonstrably works. I think you will find that the reasoning “lots of people are doing it, so it must work to some degree”, considerably more than 50% of the time, is a very valid assumption.

stumbled across this “experiment” a few years ago… tried to find sources but turned up short. So frustrating! Great to finally categorize the story as allegorical rather than having scientific merit. Thanks for easing my mind. ciao.

Glad to help!

You made one major mistake. You didnt get that its not a scientific claim that is about the monkeys behavior. Its a metaphorical story.

If it is only metaphorical, why does it need to have scientists in the story at all? Why do so many people believe that it is a real experiment? Why does it have an accompanying scientific source that is supposed to lend credence to the whole experiment but actually disproves it? Why not come up with a better metaphor, one that doesn’t begin with “a group of scientists ran an experiment…”

This is a scientific experiment. This can be used to check human beings how well they respond to social compliance. Derren Brown shows this in his experiment The Push on Youtube. As that Mr.Nobody guy said earlier in a strange way. Switch the word monkies with humans, switch the word cage with society/culture/religion.

Forget the “monkey” experiment and try to see the bigger picture. This “story” is not about monkies. You’re all right when you say it didn’t happen. Unless you believe in evolution and view human beings as a primate and thus, a sort of a monkey. It just goes to show that even we science people can be fooled. Mainly because we are very keen to take experiments literal.

It’s pretty long the experiment he did. But the main purpose about his experiment was to find out if we can use social compliance to push someone off a building and commit murder. So yea. Pretty interesting. He uses this “monkey in the cage” tactic to sort out the people who didn’t respond to social compliance from the ones who did. Whoever wrote this story is talking about social compliance using metaphors it would seem. That’s why we can’t see the science in it.

So seemed that Mr.Nobody guy be doing as well btw. Speaking in Metaphors that is.

It wasn’t a scientific experiment. It didn’t happen.

I get the metaphor. I might have liked the metaphor, if it was presented as a metaphor. It is not. It is presented as a scientific experiment.

It may illustrate a truth, of course, but that is a different thing. In that case, the opening of the story should read “This didn’t happen, but it illustrates a truth.” Dale Carnegie wrote exactly that sort of line in his book, How to Win Friends and Influence People. He says “I have among my clippings a story I know never happened, but it illustrates a truth, so I’ll repeat it.” Why is that too hard for so many others to do?

You are right in that it literally didn’t happen. But if you navigate through the world and take everything literal, then doesn’t that make you pretty blind? When in today’s world lies and manipulation is far more effective and widely used then logic and scientific facts? After all. You where about to disregard this entire “experiment” But then others come along and tell you it’s more to it. Quite important the entire topic of social compliance it turns out.

That’s true: I am right.

I like the article – the author of it, however, is ‘obviously’ a complete arrogant, pompous, pretentious, prick. The article “obviously” didn’t need to be written in a way that makes it sound that …”well since you read it on the internet ‘obviously’ it must ‘obviously’ NOT be true.” Perhaps in the future this author can spend more time sharing knowledge in a constructive way…but I doubt that since…the likelihood of someone, like this author, who ‘obviously’ knows it all, of putting his feet on the ground and actually being at our level…is quite low.

Good point. I think the use of ‘obviously’ does indeed convey a less than ideal attitude, though I allowed myself to use it in the hopes that more people would click on the link.

And yet: https://www.facebook.com/TheRealMatrix777/videos/1741507356120817/?pnref=story

Haha- excellent. Thanks for sharing!

I have my doubts about how staged that clip might be. Let’s assume it is true and none of those people were actors, at least it was filmed and there is solid proof about what these people did. That has always been my complaint about the five monkeys story: it claims to be from a scientific experiment that never happened.

“That has always been my complaint about the five monkeys story: it claims to be from a scientific experiment that never happened.”

But if we assume that the clip is true, then there is nothing to discuss. You were right from the beginning that the five monkey experiment is just a made story which explains a true phenomena in a more fancy way (again, if the clip is true or if the conclusion of the original paper is correct).

My complaint is the way you handle this subject: – I already explained my point about “inferring bs” in my other comment

– The following are really irrelevant, it looks like you are just trying to use the proof by example fallacy. The objects he used were plastic kitchen utensils, not a banana. The type of punishment was an air blast, not a water blast. There was no ladder- the object was just placed at one end of a controlled area.

– Stephenson wanted to know if a learned behaviour in one monkey could induce a lasting effect on a second monkey. He was not making a study of group dynamics or herd behaviour at all. Only this difference is somewhat valid in my opinion but they are still related to each other. That is, the failure of the first experiment wouldn’t invalidate the point of the second hypothetical experiment (because of peer pressure) but its success would increase the success probability of the hypothetical experiment.

The point being that this is really how primates behave, including people of course.

Is that your belief? Or is there actual proof for it? Sure, I see some herd behaviour around me too, when I’m in a cynical mood. The point is: herd behaviour may not be as strong as we believe it to be, we might just be seeing it everywhere because we WANT to see it, or because we assume it exists. The real point is that there is no scientific proof that primates or even humans really behave this way, and to such a strong degree. Not until there is an ACTUAL experiment with ACTUAL proof that we can see/read. Sure, I readily believe there is some herd behaviour in apes and people. It’s just there is also curiosity, inventiveness, learning skills and the capability of independent thought, that will “temper” the effect of herd behaviour in people. That’s why we don’t ALWAYS do what other people are doing. You might even say that our wariness of behaving like a herd-animal keeps it somewhat in check, most of the time.

Like Throwcase said elsewhere: there are videos with people repeating stupid behaviour on YouTube for instance. But… where those experiments real? Were there any staged events with actors? And even if they weren’t, were the experiments scientifically valid? Are they documented and peer-reviewed? And can we, or at least other scientists, see that documentation somewhere? Or were they just made by some TV-show with a half decent understanding of how to do a proper scientific experiment.

http://www.wisdompills.com/2014/05/28/the-famous-social-experiment-5-monkeys-a-ladder/ This give some souece of experiment.

No it didn’t

I’m surprised nobody has tried to recreate this experiment, although there is stuff like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AegLdB7UI4U

Yes I was fascinated to see that clip! I wonder how staged it is, though… I would be keen to see more.

Have you considered that the fact that the study never happened and yet the fiction was so easily propagated as fact supports the central point of the ficitonalized “study”?

There being something to debunk that you considered worth the effort of this article in effect *emphasizes* that the phenomenon occurs and is robust enough to warrant this kind of attention.

This just raises the question why you were interested in debunking details of factual inaccuracy when the fact that they were inaccurate just exemplifies the potency of uncritical, self-reinforcing credulity induced by social influence, which is precisely the point of the five monkeys study-cum-allegorical-fiction.

I think you just demonstrated the opposite of your implicit intent. Correct me if I’m wrong.

You have pointed out the central irony that makes the success of this meme so frustrating; yes, it was easily propagated because people just presumed it was true, but no, that popularity does not make the story true. Facts are always worth declaring, especially in the face of mounting untruths. The fact that the meme literally says “think before you follow” and people were willing to share this without actually thinking about it, is absurd. Though it might “exemplify the potency of uncritical, self-reinforcing credulity”, it does so in the name of going against the herd and thinking for yourself. The irony is endless.

Note I didn’t claim that popularity makes the story true, lol.

There are two pieces to this: the story’s facticity and the truth of the point made by what we agree was a fiction. I’m just pointing out that you chose to deal with the lesser issue, and that getting taken for true even though it’s not exemplifies the story’s point and serves as evidence for the truth of its point.

In other words, the story is a metaphor, not a rendition of fact; but like all metaphors, the truth it communicates doesn’t suffer merely because fiction was used to impart it. My point was that your debunk of the story’s facticity doesn’t detract from the truth of the story’s point and only shows how powerful metaphors are.

From a logical standpoint, showing the story to be fiction has no bearing on the truth of the point it makes about a phenomenon that is quite real and prevalent.

So the investment you made in disproving the facticity of the story only confirms that metaphors are powerful, even when presented as fact, and thus demonstrates the truth of the story’s point: it’s easy to form beliefs without facts. Given that your article seems to overlook that baby in your attention to its bathwater, I found that ironic.

I guess another way to look at this is that you seem to be confusing two different claims. One is that the experiment proves it’s possible to create beliefs without awareness of any factual basis for the belief. Debunking the experiment as a hoax would impact that claim. The other claim is that this fictional experiment nicely highlights the unreasonableness of a phenomenon that’s common and recognizable and — as anyone who has worked in any kind of long-running governance structure can tell you, whether it’s in business, government, or religion — happens all the time. You addressed the first claim, not the second. What’s more, the rhetorical implication of the article (by omission, so it’s easy to let it slip in,) is that dealing with the first claim has a bearing on the second one. But of course, that’s just poppycock. 😀

I do not see “the truth” as the lesser issue. The truth is always the more important issue. The fact that people believe this myth because it “seems” to be true still does not prove that the story is true. If anything, it proves that the meme is useless and self-contradictory, because it supposed to be an injunction NOT to believe things for superficial, and unexamined reasons.

I agree with you that truth is the most important part.

One way of simplifying and shortening down hard-to-grasp lessons and truths, are to break it down into easy to understand concepts. It’s called pedagogy. It’s not in general targeted towards very intelligent people like yourself. Or people who already understands the psychology behind it.

If we go back in our minds to when we we’re kids, we know that to be true. We didn’t start learning by counting hard-to-grasp mathematics. We started by counting apples and things like that.

I think the major problem we’re having here is the collision with different fields of experiences. To understand the underlying reason to why this is a great metaphorical lesson, one needs quite a lot of knowledge about psychology, neurology and overall history. To understand human behaviour overall.

I will say it again. You’re right about the truth is the most important part to understand. So pointing out that this experiment concerning monkeys in a cage never happen is correct.

But it’s also true that the psychological phenomenon of which this story is based upon is also true. So it’s not a “myth” either.

Derren Brown is nothing short of being an expert at these things. None of us here knows more about manipulating people’s behaviour and thoughts then he can. He puts this into practice in “The Game show – experiment”

I just think he explains the inner working of how this works in practice in a very interesting way by making fun and dramatic ways to watch it. Targeted towards people who learn faster by watching rather then reading.

That was the reason to why I mentioned him instead of a scientifical paper to read. If you like to read about it instead, I could find a real scientifical paper where this is being confirmed.

One of the most famous experiment where this happens is called “The Stanford Prison Experiment”. They took in a group of civilians and told half the group that they where prisoners and the other half was prison guards. There’s even a movie about that real experiment.

I think that movie (with the same name from 2015) would be more interesting for everyone to look at. Since it’s based on a real experiment. The 5 monkeys are not. I think the 5 monkeys was meant to explain it in a pedagogical way to children if anything.

Biggest example of when the same concept happen on a grander scale was Nazi Germany.

It’s all based in compliance.

I hope you find one or more of them interesting enough to learn more about. Since you expressed an interest when someone sent a video regarding it, but wasn’t sure if it was staged or not.

After all. Marketing agencies use the same knowledge to make the majority of people to buy stuff they don’t really need.

That’s why most of them aren’t targeting markets and people who they genuinely believe needs their products. Rather who’s more likely to buy products based on impulses.

You’re very right in pointing out the flaw in the truth of the story. Those who wrote it shouldn’t have described it using words as science and experiment. Because those are not based in metaphors. It just portrays the underlying facts which it is based on in a bad light. Specially when we come across the fact that the 5 monkey story isn’t based in a real experiment. We’ll just disregard the entire story instead since we think it’s based in fantasy rather then truth.

I thought it was real because of my knowledge about human psychology and neurology. So I thank you for pointing out that it wasn’t the case.

Have a great day Throwcase!

No one said truth is not important, so I’m not sure who you’re addressing there. Ghosts?

You conflated two things, one more important than the other, and so the truth of the one is more important than the truth of the other, but you focused on the less important issue as if it discredited the more important issue.

Question 1: Truth of the phenomenon that the metaphor portrays. This is the more important issue you don’t seem to like and failed to give it its due.

Question 2: The truth of the claim that the experiment in fact occurred.

You fail to grasp that these are independent questions, and disproving the second actually has no bearing on the truth or value of the first.

This is basic logic, dude.

I’ll give you an example. I tell you I conducted an experiment and found that if you jump off a cliff you’ll be smashed against the rocks against the bottom. In fact, I conducted no such experiment.

Your article is the equivalent of arguing that since my claim to have done an experiment is false, my conclusion is suspect or even flat out wrong. Not only would that be incorrect in the example’s case — you really will get smashed against the rocks if you jump off the cliff — the idea that disproving my claim to have performed an experiment has any bearing on the truth of the conclusion of the bogus experiment is just silly. There is no connection. It has no bearing. Just like your article.

If the phenomenon is so true why do we need to invent experiments to describe it? No one benefits from this. A scientific experiment either happened or it didn’t, and misinformation of any form should be corrected. If the phenomenon is true, let us conduct a real experiment to prove it, or invent a fictional story to describe it. There is no need to start that fictional story with the supposedly genuine claim that “a group of scientists” were involved. That is a lie.

Or, as you posted on your blog:

“If their purposes were honorable, they would be in possession of facts, of the truth of what’s really going on, and they wouldn’t need bullshit.

Resorting to bullshit proves dishonesty on a level even deeper than lying.”

Millard and Damien basically have summed up what I wanted to say, probably in a much better way than I would have been able to.

I just want to point out something, from the edit at the bottom of you rant:

“He also insists it is a fable, not a story about a real experiment. This is probably why he introduces it as “an experiment I came across; apparently a group of researchers were looking at behaviour. What they did was, they got five monkeys…””

As soon as the word “apparently” appear, I would assume this is not a scietific claim. The story of the scientists conduction this experiment is indeed like a fable, designed to explain something real in an easy to grasp way. And I guess the reason people share it so easily, is because they know it to be true from their own experience. It’s like this experiment goes on in real life, for everyone, always.

Wow, wrote a nice long response and it disappeared. Oh well.

Well, how about… https://www.facebook.com/anonews.co/videos/1313784798633076/?hc_ref=NEWSFEED

Indeed! Someone else posted that as well. If it is not faked in any way, it would be much better proof than this monkey story.

@Throwcase: I told you such an experiment has already been done: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jdOoxnr7AI

This phenomenon has been studied for quite some time now. It’s being studied as we speak actually. But it’s okey. You can continue to live in denial.. However, you’re not being scientific about this. Just sayin.

Helpful Termonology:

Conformity: Is a type of social influence involving a change in belief or behavior in order to fit in with a group. This change is in response to real (involving the physical presence of others) or imagined (involving the pressure of social norms / expectations) group pressure.

Source: http://www.simplypsychology.org/conformity.html

Compliance: Refers to a response—specifically, a submission—made in reaction to a request. The request may be explicit (i.e., foot-in-the-door technique) or implicit (i.e., advertising). The target may or may not recognize that he or she is being urged to act in a particular way. (In these cases presented we’re looking at the banana eater and the prisoners)

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compliance_(psychology)

Social compliance (business): Result of conformance to the rules of social accountability by the extended organization including not only the organization’s own policies and practices but also those of its supply and distribution chains. It is a continuing process in which the involved parties keep on looking for better ways to protect the health, safety, and fundamental rights of their employees, and to protect and enhance the community and environment in which they operate.

Source: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/social-compliance.html

You use the words “such an experiment has already been done”. Since you are unable to say “this experiment has already been done”, my point stands: the five monkey experiment never happened. The rest of your links are fascinating, but pointless. This article is about whether or not the five monkey experiment actually happened. (It didn’t.)

As I said. You’re not being scientific about this in order to not be in the wrong. Which we’ve already cleared you of being, regarding the five monkey experiment. So I don’t see how you can still be stuck on that. But to say that it is “pointless” to point out that the lesson behind the story is true is equally if not more important to emphasis, is quite chocking to hear to be honest.

For you to be so focused on dissproving the five monkey story is the equivelent of me going through every episode of Dexters laboratory and dissproving everything that is scientifically wrong with that show. Now that is the definition of something pointless.

To direct you to the real experiments regarding this is a civic duty since you have completely missed to cover that in your article. Which is okey. It’s your article. But it would be cool of you to write a follow up, covering the real experiments as a compliment to the facts of this phenomenon.

It’s nat true scientifically , but still useful to convince people. There are lots of fanatics around us

Eagleheart has it right. The religion of science, of the new credibility, has made us disbelieve what still cannot be disproven. The monkeys that curse and yet cause slowdowns on the roads as soon as there’s a rubber-necking opportunity are in the millions. I was in one of these festivals the other day, true celebrations of our irrational behavior. That the same shifting horde would turn around and put the imprimatur of ‘science’ on our lemming-like behavior does not negate what we see in our own unscientific reflections at the end of a long day.

Come on guys this however doubt able experiment proofs one point. If you are going to change monkeys, change all at the same time. You can use “word” politics instead of monkeys.

Glad to see someone calling out those absurd TED talks, where virtually anyone can be an expert and every talk is presented as life-changing incredible advice.

Seems like TED is popular the way “I Fucking Love Science” is popular. The people who are into that stuff are the same people clogging everyone’s social media feeds with GIF’d platitudes and articles about scientific research, not because they actually understand that stuff, but because they want people to *think* they understand and view them as intellectuals.

It’s like high school kids who shape their identities around the music they like and the clothes they wear — if you want to present yourself as an intellectual online, you retweet links to TED talks and post photographs of nature and star systems captioned as “science.” Really? A tiger is “science”? A Jovian planet is “science”?

And of course, these people don’t know shit. They don’t actually read the articles or watch the videos they’re reposting, they just want you to think they do. Cause they’re smart and stuff.

Excellent reply. Great minds think alike. 🙂

Hmmmm. Your source for this article was the internet. Your article Must be true lol you cannot verify nor deny everything. It is the way people act. Your article seems to insinuate that monkeys are smarter than people.

Comments are closed.

….@ the intersection of learning & performance

Thoughts on people and the workplace, the monkey experiment and edgar schein.

April 2, 2014.   A reader brought to my attention that the research cited in this post is suspect.  http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/games-primates-play/201203/what-monkeys-can-teach-us-about-human-behavior-facts-fiction ).  After a little digging, it appears that the story originated in a credible business book, “ Competing for the Future ” by Gary Hamel and C. K. Prahalad.  One writer went so far as to contact Hamel’s office to obtain the actual research cited in the book, and apparently received a brush off.  So while this makes a good story to support theories on organizational culture, perhaps it should merely be taken as that – a good story.  But…I have seen the behavior in 30-some years of corporate work and the message is sound.

One of many “funny” emails floating around the internet contained the story of the monkey, banana and water spray experiment.  I was pretty sure it was true ( because I’ve seen it happen – but not with monkeys ), but I wanted to source it anyway.

But let’s take it to the topic of organizational culture. Edgar Schein talks about the “ unconscious, taken-for-granted beliefs, perceptions, thoughts and feelings.  The ultimate source of values and action.” (Schein, 2004) This is the part that you see but it is difficult to understand “the why”.  Often, these assumptions conflict with the “artifacts” and “values” that are talked about and written on posters and intranets.

A practical example.  A healthcare organization is exceedingly proud of their strong culture of caring for patients.  Everything from their new employee orientation to their performance management program focus on caring, quality and speaking up when they saw something wrong.

But several years ago, a new nurse just out of orientation publicly corrected a physician and was publicly “flogged”.  That nurse became a mentor to several other nurses, and quickly explained that what they learned in orientation about speaking up was erroneous, and they would actually be subject to discipline if they challenged a physician or a more senior nurse.

Year after year, the unspoken rule is handed down, and the energy and excitement of hearing the values at orientation gives way to cynicism and silence.

Does this really happen?  You betcha!

What do to?  The answer isn’t really difficult, but it takes courage to execute.  The answer lies in asking good questions, observing behavior and understanding what those underlying assumptions are.  And here’s the key….once that is known, leadership has to make change to bring the artifacts and values in line with the assumptions.  Sounds easy, doesn’t it.  So why don’t more organizations do this?

“Did the monkey banana and water spray experiment ever take place? Answer:

The Monkey Banana and Water Spray Experiment The experiment is real (scientific study cited below). This experiment involved 5 monkeys (10 altogether, including replacements), a cage, a banana, a ladder and, an ice cold water hose. The Experiment- Part 1 5 monkeys are locked in a cage, a banana was hung from the ceiling and a ladder was placed right underneath it. As predicted, immediately, one of the monkeys would race towards the ladder, to grab the banana. However, as soon as he would start to climb, the researcher would spray the monkey with ice-cold water. but here’s the kicker- In addition, he would also spray the other four monkeys… When a second monkey tried to climb the ladder, the researcher would, again, spray the monkey with ice-cold water, As well as the other four watching monkeys; This was repeated again and again until they learned their lesson Climbing equals scary cold water for EVERYONE so No One Climbs the ladder. The Experiment- Part 2 Once the 5 monkeys knew the drill, the researcher replaced one of the monkeys with a new inexperienced one. As predicted, the new monkey spots the banana, and goes for the ladder. BUT, the other four monkeys, knowing the drill, jumped on the new monkey and beat him up. The beat up new guy thus Learns- NO going for the ladder and No Banana Period- without even knowing why! and also without ever being sprayed with water! These actions get repeated with 3 more times, with a new monkey each time and ASTONISHINGLY each new monkey- who had never received the cold-water Spray himself (and didn’t even know anything about it), would Join the beating up of the New guy. This is a classic example of Mob Mentality- bystanders and outsiders uninvolved with the fight- join in ‘just because’. When the researcher replaced a third monkey, the same thing happened; likewise for the fourth until, eventually, all the monkeys had been replaced and none of the original ones are left in the cage (that had been sprayed by water). The Experiment- Part 3 Again, a new monkey was introduced into the cage. It ran toward the ladder only to get beaten up by the others. The monkey turns with a curious face asking “why do you beat me up when I try to get the banana?” The other four monkeys stopped and looked at each other puzzled (None of them had been sprayed and so they really had no clue why the new guy can’t get the banana) but it didn’t matter, it was too late, the rules had been set. And So, although they didn’t know WHY, they beat up the monkey just because ” that’s the way we do things around here”… Well, it seems to be true; not in the exact shape that it took here, but close enough, Below is a quotation from the experiment, in scientific Jargon: (sources cited below) “Stephenson (1967) trained adult male and female rhesus monkeys to avoid manipulating an object and then placed individual naïve animals in a cage with a trained individual of the same age and sex and the object in question. In one case, a trained male actually pulled his naïve partner away from the previously punished manipulandum during their period of interaction, whereas the other two trained males exhibited what were described as “threat facial expressions while in a fear posture” when a naïve animal approached the manipulandum. When placed alone in the cage with the novel object, naïve males that had been paired with trained males showed greatly reduced manipulation of the training object in comparison with controls. Unfortunately, training and testing were not carried out using a discrimination procedure so the nature of the transmitted information cannot be determined, but the data are of considerable interest.” Sources: Stephenson, G. R. (1967). Cultural acquisition of a specific learned response among rhesus monkeys. In: Starek, D., Schneider, R., and Kuhn, H. J. (eds.), Progress in Primatology, Stuttgart: Fischer, pp. 279-288. Mentioned in: Galef, B. G., Jr. (1976). Social Transmission of Acquired Behavior: A Discussion of Tradition and Social Learning in Vertebrates. In: Rosenblatt, J.S., Hinde, R.A., Shaw, E. and Beer, C. (eds.), Advances in the study of behavior, Vol. 6, New York: Academic Press, pp. 87-88:”

______________________________________________________

Schein, E. H. (2004). Organizational Culture and Leadership . San Francisco, Jossey Bass, pp. 26.

Animated monkey from http://www.animationfactory.com  

Share this:

13 thoughts on “ The Monkey Experiment and Edgar Schein ”

Carol, what a great illustration of how a “culture” gets built, for better or worse. As you have, I’ve seen it all too many times – the actions don’t match the words on the wall. Then leaders wonder ‘why aren’t people doing what we want them to do?’ It really is because they have literally learned not to. You recently used the word authenticity and I think that is what so much of it comes down to. Culture is all about what we do, not what we say. If we act inauthentically, it becomes like a parasitic vine, eventually weaving throughout the entire organization and hard to get rid of.

Thanks for your response, Peggy. I like the analogy of a parasitic vine….it grows fast and the host doesn’t even know it’s there!

With the new job, I’ve been thinking quite a bit about espoused values and the actual experience. I’m treated as a regular employee (and I will be one in June), but when it comes down to some cultural items, I’m absolutely a contractor and should stay quiet and out of the way.

Thanks for stopping by Erica. You know, the whole thing seems so simple, but the hidden and/or unspoken things can so quickly become habit.

Does the fact that Answers.com appears to be perpetuating a myth pose any difficulties for you? (Cf. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/games-primates-play/201203/what-monkeys-can-teach-us-about-human-behavior-facts-fiction )

Thanks for the correction, David. Your sarcasm is obvious, but I do appreciate the information.

David, I looked further, and it appears that this experiment may have been originated in “Competing for the Future” by Hamel and Prahalad. This link ( http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/6828/was-the-experiment-with-five-monkeys-a-ladder-a-banana-and-a-water-spray-condu )indicates an attempt to trace back the origins of the experiment without success.

Your point is a good one – to verify the sources of internet research. While it appears that this may have been urban legend perpetuated by “business writers,” the premise of learned culture is valid and has been researched by theoreticians in the world of business, such as Edgar Schein. The “follower” mentality that evolves from cultural norms is exhibited every day in the modern business world, making culture change extremely difficult.

Any chance you could provide some references for the research that has been conducted by theoreticians in the world of business as you note? I think “world of business” is key, not just freshmen Psy/Soc students or rhesus monkeys. Thanks.

I don’t have a copy of Hamel & Prahalad’s book, so I can’t look it up right now. Not sure what you are asking, but sometimes “research” and “world of business” are oxymorons. I did provide reference for Schein….

I commend you for a magnanimous & thoughtful response to a snarky comment, for which I must apologize. The Skeptics link you provided is as informative as any I’ve come across. At this point it would be helpful to view the 1967 paper from G. R. Stephenson to see more details of the original experiment. Because those details have not yet been brought to light, it seems apparent that subsequent authors have elaborated details to fit their rhetorical purposes.

There are many others transmitting this meme, I among them before I actually looked into it and discovered the lack of substantiation for it. I agree that the story is compelling & rings true; I think most of us have seen this type of behavior not only in corporate culture but in any social system maintained by fear. As a middle school teacher & erstwhile authority figure, I find abundant opportunities to question my decisions – was it the right thing to do, or was I simply playing the sixth monkey? – as I have questioned the use of sarcasm in commenting on your original blog entry.

The takeaway consideration for me is this: To what extent do I undermine my own credibility when using misinformation to support my argument? I think the answers go back to the author’s original intent and to the manner of the author’s response when confronted with more accurate information. Unlike some writers’ treatment of the anecdote, I feel that you have acquitted your position on both fronts.

Among the discrepancies between source and elaboration were air blasts instead of showers and novel objects instead of bananas. The experiment from Stephenson’s 1967 paper bears little resemblance to that described in the meme: http://www.scribd.com/doc/106891948/Stephenson-G-R-1967-Cultural-Acquisition-of-a-Specific-Learned-Response-Among-Rhesus-Monkeys-in-Starek-D-Schneider-R-And-Kuhn-H-J-Eds

Makes one wonder how many other authors try to dress their fiction up in the guise of science.

David, thanks for your recent comments. I also found the original Stephenson article, and skimmed it. One of my most fervid beliefs is that business practitioners of today are being bombarded with “research” and falling prey to trying this, and then that when this didn’t work. The confusion this presents to the workforce can literally tank an organization. I saw that with my own eyes.

Good lesson learned from all. Trust, but verify. With the wealth of information available in today’s internet, comes responsibility for verifying the content.

• Pingback: LEAVE MY REALITY ALONE! | | Fade To Blog

Leave a comment Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

• Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
• Subscribe Subscribed
• Copy shortlink
• Report this content
• View post in Reader
• Manage subscriptions
• Collapse this bar

Experiment, Learn, Play, Laugh... Monkey Around.

There's a big universe out there. Let's explore it with science!

Science is banan-tastic.

Your brain is amazing..

Albert Einstein Facts

Telescope Facts

Spider Facts

Uranus Facts

Earth Facts

So, fill your noggin with some knowledge..., don't be afraid to get your hands dirty....

Why Are Sea Levels Rising?

Separating Butter & Whey

Magnetic Cereal

Pourable fire extinguisher.

Dry Ice Air Hockey

Sink Or Swim?

Roll out some sushi for Papa's new sushi restaurant.

Papa's sushiria.

Drag the dots and uncross the lines. Simple enough, right?

The original world's hardest game.

The world's hardest game.

Well, quack, quack, quack, quack.

Duck life 4.

Defend yourself from the evil Bloons army... again!

Bloons tower defense 2.

Grab your darts and start popping!

But most importantly, have bunches of fun..., and certainly don't forget to laugh.

Dinosaur Jokes

Fruit Jokes

Doctor Jokes

Metric System Jokes

Space Jokes

School Jokes

• Experiments
• For Grownups
• Copyright Infringement
• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Use
• External Links
• Report Page

More From Forbes

Any monkey can beat the market.

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

Give a monkey enough darts and they’ll beat the market. So says a draft article by Research Affiliates highlighting the simulated results of 100 monkeys throwing darts at the stock pages in a newspaper . The average monkey outperformed the index by an average of 1.7 percent per year since 1964. That’s a lot of bananas!

What is all this monkey business? It started in 1973 when Princeton University professor Burton Malkiel claimed in his bestselling book, A Random Walk Down Wall Street , that “A blindfolded monkey throwing darts at a newspaper's financial pages could select a portfolio that would do just as well as one carefully selected by experts.”

“Malkiel was wrong,” stated Rob Arnott, CEO of Research Affiliates, while speaking at the IMN Global Indexing and ETFs conference earlier this month. “The monkeys have done a much better job than both the experts and the stock market.”

In their yet-to-be-published article, the company randomly selected 100 portfolios containing 30 stocks from a 1,000 stock universe. They repeated this processes every year, from 1964 to 2010, and tracked the results. The process replicated 100 monkeys throwing darts at the stock pages each year. Amazingly, on average, 98 of the 100 monkey portfolios beat the 1,000 stock capitalization weighted stock universe each year.

Nice trick! What’s the deal?

No trick. Just send me $10,000 and I’ll sell you the best stock-picking monkey that money can buy! Seriously, the trick behind the outperforming portfolios had nothing to do with monkeys or darts. It’s all about smaller company stocks and value stocks outperforming the market over the period.

From 1964 to 2011, the annualized return for the 1,000 stocks used by Research Affiliates was 9.7 percent. The 30 largest companies in the 1000 made up about 40 percent of the capitalization weight, but their return was only 8.6 percent annually. The other 970 stocks made up 60 percent by capitalization weight and their return was 10.5 percent annually. That’s a 0.8 percent per year premium return for smaller stocks over the 1,000 stock universe and a 1.9 percent premium return over the largest stocks.

Any portfolio of 30 stocks randomly selected from the list of 1,000 stocks is bound to include mostly smaller companies. Since small companies outperformed big companies, this is how Malkiel’s monkey portfolio beats the market.

It also helped that the 30 stocks in the monkey portfolio were equally weighted by Research Affiliates. This technique reduced the average market cap relative to the cap weighted index and helped boost the return. In addition, equal weighting “tilted” the portfolio toward value stocks, which earned a higher return than growth stocks over the 1964 to 2011 period.

Before running down to the local pet store and ordering your dart-throwing monkey, consider the other side of the story. Where there is extra return, there’s usually extra risk. You can bet there’s more risk if beating the market was as simple as buying a monkey to throw darts. Portfolios that hold a higher concentration in small-cap stocks and value stocks have more risk than the market as a whole.

The small-cap premium is widely recognized in academia. It’s the extra return expected for taking risk by investing in smaller companies. These companies may not be well known, may not be global, may not be well capitalized, may only have a few products, and may not have large distribution networks for their products. That makes them riskier than larger companies.

In addition, smaller companies also have to pay more than large companies when borrowing money. So, it’s logical that equity investors would expect to earn more relative to larger companies.

The small-cap premium is eloquently deconstructed by the Fama-French Three Factor Model . This model compares a portfolio return to three distinct risks found in the equity market: beta – which is co-movement of all stocks in general; size – which relates to the size of companies in a portfolio relative to the market; and value – which compares the amount of value stocks to growth stocks.

There’s no such thing as a free lunch on Wall Street . Portfolio return is a combination of beta, size and value. The level of these three risks in a portfolio gives it a unique risk and return fingerprint.

You really don’t need an animal to pick stocks for you, or a human for that matter. An all index fund portfolio in all asset classes all the time has a much higher probability of outperforming most portfolios that are trying to beat the market. See my latest book, The Power of Passive Investing , for all the facts and figures on index fund investing.

I wish to thank Rob Arnott and Jason Hsu of Research Affiliates for assisting with this blog. They have yet to announce when or where they’ll publish their article on this monkey business. It will be much more in-depth than this brief overview. In the meantime, you can find related articles on the Research Affiliates website .

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

Recommended

Breaking news, gamestop shares tank after ceo says store network will shrink despite huge cash pile.

Thanks for contacting us. We've received your submission.

Shares of GameStop tumbled on Monday after CEO Ryan Cohen told investors that the videogame retailer plans to operate a smaller network of stores and gave no details on what it plans to do with its cash pile.

GameStop shares closed down 12% at $25.22 on Monday after the annual general shareholder meeting, which lasted about 20 minutes.

Cohen said he anticipates the business will be operated with “a smaller network and more value-added” items as part of the company’s attempt to boost sales and profitability.

He did not reveal how the company will use its roughly $4 billion in cash, which it built up following share sales in June and May, saying only that having a stronger balance sheet is “always an advantage.”

Shares of the video game retailer have gyrated wildly over the last month after Keith Gill, the stock influencer known as Roaring Kitty who helped kick off meme-stock mania in 2021 , reappeared and later disclosed a large position in GameStop.

Investors had been hoping that Cohen would reveal more details of a strategic plan to revitalize GameStop’s business, analysts said.

Cohen’s lack of detail on acquisition plans “is disappointing for at least some investors,” said Michael Pachter, an analyst at Wedbush Securities with a price target of $13.50 on the company.

Pachter noted that GameStop’s recently released filings showed a profit margin of about 36%, suggesting the company is doing well in reselling used software and hardware. On the other hand, competition remains intense in the market for gaming consoles while the second-hand market for used software is slowly drying up as gamers shift to digital downloads, he said.

The company has been grappling with slowing sales as its core business of selling new and pre-owned videogame disks takes a hit from consumers’ move to downloading games digitally or streaming. Net sales fell to $881.8 million compared with $1.24 billion a year ago, the company said on June 7,  when it reported earnings earlier than expected .

GameStop raised $933 million by selling shares to cash in on a meme stock rally last month, when the stock doubled in value and an additional $2.14 billion earlier this month. Still, shares are down sharply from their May peak and down more than 70% from 2021 intraday highs.

Gill triggered the most recent wave of exuberance among retail investors after he disclosed ownership of 5 million GameStop shares and 120,000 June $20 strike call options in a screen shot posted on Reddit on June 2.

Gill updated his position last week to show he owned about 9 million shares and no options on the company.

Share this article:

Advertisement