Experiments in Psychology

Psychology Experiments

PDF generated using the open source mwlib toolkit. See http://code.pediapress.com/ http://code.pediapress.com/ for more information. PDF generated at: Fri, 09 Nov 2012 08:17:34 UTC

Contents Articles Air-defense experiments

1

Analog observation

2

Asch conformity experiments

3

Attrition (medicine, epidemiology)

5

Behavioural despair test

5

Blacky pictures

7

User:Bdelsanto/sandbox

8

Bobo doll experiment

15

Cognitive chronometry

20

Conflict procedure

20

Cyranoid

22

Eriksen flanker task

22

Fordham Experiment

24

Ganzfeld experiment

25

Genetic Studies of Genius

30

Hofling hospital experiment

33

Implicit Association Test

34

Independent measures

45

Le Jeu de la Mort

46

Laboratory experimentation

46

Learned helplessness

47

Lexical decision task

53

Little Albert experiment

54

Mackworth Clock

57

Media violence research

58

Metallic Metals Act

67

MIDAS Trial

68

Milgram experiment

68

The Monster Study

77

Naturalistic observation

81

Nun Study

82

Oddball paradigm

83

Oklahoma City sonic boom tests

84

Open Field (animal test)

86

PEBL (software)

87

Pit of despair

89

Project Pigeon

92

Pseudoword

93

Psychological statistics

94

Psychomotor vigilance task

96

PsychoPy

98

PsyScope

99

Rat Park

100

Rosenhan experiment

105

Rotarod performance test

109

Small-world experiment

110

Speech shadowing

116

Stanford marshmallow experiment

117

Stanford prison experiment

119

Tail suspension test

126

The Third Wave

128

The Three Christs of Ypsilanti

131

Tone variator

132

Ulcers in Executive Monkeys

134

Vignette (psychology)

135

Virtual reality cue reactivity

136

Water-level task

139

Web-based experiments

139

Wike's law of low odd primes

141

Wizards Project

141

References Article Sources and Contributors

144

Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors

148

Article Licenses License

149

Air-defense experiments

Air-defense experiments The Air-defense experiments were a series of management science experiments performed between 1952 and 1954 by RAND Corporation's Systems Research Laboratory. The experiments were designed to provide information about organizational learning and how teams improved their performance through practice.

Experiment structure The series was constructed from 4 different experiments (code named Casey, Cowboy, Cobra, and Cogwheel). The first of these (Casey) used college students as crew for the air defense scenario whilst members of the United States Air Force were used in the latter experiments. For each of the 4 experiments different structures and timespans were used: • Casey: 28 college students, 54 4-hour sessions • Cowboy: 39 Air Force officers and airmen, 22 8-hour sessions • Cobra: 40 Air Force officers and airmen, 22 8-hour sessions • Cogwheel: 33 Air Force officers and airmen, 14 4-hour sessions

Purpose The purpose of the experiments was to examine how teams of men operated in an environment composed of complex information flows making decisions under conditions of high stress. The experimental design was to simulate an air defense control center in which the team was presented with simulated radar images showing air traffic as well as simulated telephone conversations with outside agencies reporting additional information (such as the availability of interceptor aircraft or confirmation of civilian aircraft).[1]

Results and conclusions The experiment series generated a great deal of both qualitative and quantitative data and the results of earlier experiments were used to improve the experimental apparatus and organization for later versions of the experiment. The first experiment (Casey) was conducted with college students from which it was determined that culture was a large factor in team as well as individual performance. While an attempt had been made to approximate a military culture in the college student team, the researchers decided that use of actual military personnel would provide more success. Hence later experiments used exclusively servicemen. The original experimental design was to provide a particular level of difficulty to determine how well the air-defense team was able learn the individual tasks as well as the intra-team coordination needed to be successful at the air-defense task. The research team also modified the experimental design after the results of Casey, these indicated that crews were able to learn rapidly and were able to accommodate the level of difficulty, within a few sessions, to an effective level.[2] Beginning with Cowboy, the air-defense crews were presented with a series of sessions each of which had a higher task load than the previous session. The task load was made up of two variables, kind and number of hostile aircraft and characteristics of friendly traffic (among which the hostile aircraft were sprinkled). In the report on these experiments co-authors Chapman, Kennedy, Newell, and Biel (1959) write that: the four [experimental] organizations behaved like organisms. Not only did the experiments provide graphic demonstrations of how much performance difference resulted from learning, but they also showed how differently the same people used the same tools under essentially the “ same load conditions at different times. The structures and procedures that glued functional components together so changed that an ” organization was only nominally the same from day to day.

1

Air-defense experiments

2

Footnotes [1] The experiment report (see references) notes that: Thus, the input to the center contains detailed, redundant information about a few very important events and many unimportant events in its task environment.

[2] Once again the report concludes that: the college students were maintaining highly effective defense of their area while playing word games and doing homework on the side.

References Chapman, Robert L., Kennedy, John L., Newell, A., Biel, William C. (1959). Air Defense Experiments. Management Science, Vol 5, No. 3 (Apr 1959).

The Systems Research Laboratory's

Further reading Argyris, Chris; Donald Schon (1978). Organizational learning: a theory of action perspective . Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. ISBN 0-201-00174-8. Schon, Donald (1983). The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action . Basic Books. ISBN 1-85742-319-4.

Analog observation is, in contrast to naturalistic observation, a research tool by which a subject is observed in an artificial setting. Typically, types of settings in which analog observation is utilized include clinical offices or research laboratories, but, by definition, analog observations can be made in any artificial environment, even if the environment is one which the subject is likely to encounter naturally. Analog observation [1]

Applications is typically divided into two iteration of application: The first iteration primarily studies the effect of manipulation of variables in the subject's environment, including setting and events, on the subject's behavior. The second iteration primarily seeks to observe the subject's behavior in quasi-experimental social situations.[2] Analog observation

References [1] Comer, Ronald J. (1996). Fundamentals of Abnormal Psychology. New York: W.H. Freeman and Co.. pp. 80. [2] Corsini, Raymond J. (1984). Encyclopedia of psychology. New York: Wiley. pp. 89.


Asch conformity experiments The Asch conformity experiments were a series of laboratory studies published in the 1950s that demonstrated a surprising degree of conformity to a majority opinion. These are also known as the Asch Paradigm.

Methodology Experiments led by Solomon Asch of Swarthmore College asked groups of students to participate in a "vision test." In reality, all but one of the participants were confederates of the experimenter, and the study was really about how the remaining student would react to the confederates' behavior. Each participant was put into a group with 5 to 7 "confederates" (people who knew the true aims of the experiment, but were introduced as participants to the naive "real" participant). The participants were shown a card with a line on it, followed by another card with 3 lines on it labeled A, B, and C. The participants were then asked to say which line matched the line on the first card in length. Each One of the pairs of cards used in the experiment. The card on the left has line question was called a "trial". The "real" the reference line and the one on the right shows the three comparison participant answered last or next to last. For the lines. first two trials, the participant would feel at ease in the experiment, as he and the confederates gave the obvious, correct answer. On the third trial, the confederates would all give the same wrong answer. There were 18 trials in total and the confederates answered incorrectly for 12 of them. These 12 were known as the "critical trials". The aim was to see whether the real participant would change his answer and respond in the same way as the confederates, despite it being the wrong answer.

Results In a control group, with no pressure to conform to an erroneous view, only one participant out of 35 ever gave an incorrect answer. Solomon Asch hypothesized that the majority of participants would not conform to something obviously wrong; however, when surrounded by individuals all voicing an incorrect answer, participants provided incorrect responses on a high proportion of the questions (32%). Seventy-five percent of the participants gave an incorrect answer to at least one question. Variations of the basic paradigm tested how many cohorts were necessary to induce conformity, examining the influence of just one cohort and as many as fifteen. Results indicate that one cohort has virtually no influence and two cohorts have only a small influence. When three or more cohorts are present, the tendency to conform increases only modestly. The maximum effect occurs with four cohorts. Adding additional cohorts does not produce a stronger effect. The unanimity of the confederates has also been varied. When the confederates are not unanimous in their judgment, even if only one confederate voices a different opinion, participants are much more likely to resist the urge to conform (only 5 – 10% conform) than when the confederates all agree. This finding illuminates the power that even a small dissenting minority can have. Interestingly, this finding holds whether or not the dissenting confederate gives the correct answer. As long as the dissenting confederate gives an answer that is different from the majority, participants are more likely to give the correct answer. Men show around half the effect of women (tested in

3

Asch conformity experiments same-sex groups); and conformity is higher among members of an ingroup.[1]

Interpretations Public conformity vs. social influence

The Asch conformity experiments are often interpreted as evidence for the power of conformity and normative social influence.[2][3] That is, the willingness to conform publicly to attain social reward and avoid social punishment. Others have argued that it is rational to use other people's judgments as evidence. [4] Along the lines of the latter perspective, the Asch conformity experiments are cited as evidence for the self-categorization theory account of social influence. From that perspective the Asch results are interpreted as an outcome of depersonalization processes whereby the participants expect to hold the same opinions as similar others.[2][5] Social comparison theory

The conformity demonstrated in Asch experiments is problematic for social comparison theory,[2][6][5] which predicts that when physical reality testing yields uncertainty, social reality testing, or informational influence will arise. The Asch conformity experiments demonstrated that uncertainty can arise as an outcome of social reality testing. Relatedly, this inconsistency has been used to support the position that the theoretical distinction between social reality testing and physical reality testing, as well as the distinction between informational influence and normative influence, are untenable.[5][3][7]

References [1] Bond, R. and Smith, P. B. (1996.) Culture and Conformity: A Meta-Analysis of Studies Using Asch's ( 1952b, 1956) Line Judgment Task. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 111-137. [2] Turner, J.C. (1985). Lawler, E. J.. ed. "Social categorization and the self-concept: A social cognitive theory of group behavoir". Advances in group processes: Theory and research (Greenwich, CT: JAI press) 2: 77 – 122. [3] Turner, J. C. (1991). Social influence. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. [4] Robert J. Aumann (1976). "Agreeing to Disagree". The Annals of Statistics 4 (6): 1236-1239. ISSN 00905364 [5] Turner, J. C. (1987). Reicher, J.C.; Hogg, M. A.; Oakes, P. J.. eds. "The analysis of social influence". Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory (Basil Blackwell): 68-88. [6] Turner, John; Oakes, Penny (1986). "The significance of the social identity concept for social psychology with reference to individualism, interactionism and social influence". British Journal of Social Psychology 25 (3): 237 – 252. [7] {{cite journal |Last =Turner | First = J. C. |title=Explaining the nature of power: A three-process theory|journal=European Journal of Social Psychology|year=2005|volume=35|pages=1-22

Bibliography • Asch, S. E. (1951). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgment. In H. Guetzkow (ed.) Groups, leadership and men . Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Press. ( summary here (http:/ / faculty.babson.edu/ krollag/ org_site/ soc_psych/ asch_conform.html)) • Asch, S. E. (1955). Opinions and social pressure (http:/ / www.panarchy.org/ asch/ social.pressure.1955.html). Scientific American, 193, 31-35. • Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs, 70 (Whole no. 416). • Bond, R., & Smith, P. (1996). Culture and conformity: A meta-analysis of studies using Asch’s (1952b, 1956) line judgment task. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 111-137. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.119.1.111 • Hayes, N. (2000). Foundations of psychology. 3rd edition. Thomson, p. 518-520.

4


5

External links • Science Aid: Asch experiment (http:/ / scienceaid.co.uk/ psychology/ social/ majority.html) A look at majority influence and Asch's experiment for high school level • Changingminds: Normative social influence (http:/ / changingminds.org/ explanations/ theories/ normative_social_influence.htm) • Age of the sage summary of one Asch experiment (http:/ / www.age-of-the-sage.org/ psychology/ social/ asch_conformity.html) • BBC Radio: Mind changers: Solomon Asch (http:/ / www.bbc.co.uk/ radio4/ science/ mindchangers1.shtml) • Video (http:/ / www.betterdaystv.net/ play.php?vid=19441)

Attrition (medicine, epidemiology) In science, attrition are ratios regarding the loss of participants during an experiment. Attrition rates are values that indicate participant drop out. Higher attrition rates are found in longitudinal studies.

Behavioural despair test Animal testing

Main articles

Animal testing Alternatives to animal testing Testing on: invertebrates frogs · primates rabbits · rodents Animal testing regulations History of animal testing History of model organisms IACUC Laboratory animal sources Pain and suffering in lab animals Testing cosmetics on animals Toxicology testing Vivisection Issues

Biomedical Research Animal rights/Animal welfare Animals (Scientific Procedures) Great ape research ban International trade in primates


6 Controversial experiments Britches · Brown Dog affair

Cambridge University primates Pit of despair Silver Spring monkeys Unnecessary Fuss

Companies

Jackson Laboratory Charles River Laboratories, Inc. Covance · Harlan Huntingdon Life Sciences UK lab animal suppliers Nafovanny · Shamrock Groups/campaigns AALAS · AAAS · ALF

Americans for Medical Progress Boyd Group · BUAV Dr Hadwen Trust Foundation for Biomedical Research · FRAME National Anti-Vivisection Society PETA · Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine Primate Freedom Project Pro-Test SPEAK · SHAC Speaking of Research Understanding Animal Research Writers/activists Tipu Aziz · Michael Balls Neal Barnard · Colin Blakemore Simon Festing · Gill Langley Ingrid Newkirk · Bernard Rollin Jerry Vlasak · Syed Ziaur Rahman Categories Animal testing · Animal rights

Animal welfare Related templates

Template:Animal rights

The behavioural despair test (also called the Porsolt test or forced swimming test) is a test used to measure the effect of antidepressant drugs on the behaviour of laboratory animals (typically rats or mice).


Method Animals are subjected to two trials during which they are forced to swim in an acrylic glass cylinder filled with water, and from which they cannot escape. The first trial lasts 15 minutes. Then, after 24-hours, a second trial is performed that lasts 5 minutes. The time that the test animal spends without moving in the second trial is measured. This immobility time is decreased by antidepressants.

Controversy in interpretation Classically, the results of this test have been interpreted such that immobility in the second test is a behavioural correlate of negative mood, representing a kind of hopelessness in the animal. However, there is some debate between scientists whether increased immobility instead demonstrates a learning within the animal and a positive behavioural adaptation, i.e. the animal has learnt it can't escape and is conserving energy until it is removed by the experimenter. As for any behavioral paradigm, it is extremely important to display the appropriate control groups when presenting results obtained using the forced swimming test. The terms of "behavioural despair test" bears an anthropomorphic connotation. Strictly speaking, the descriptive terms "forced swimming test" should be used preferentially.

References • Porsolt RD, Bertin A, Jalfre M. (1977). "Behavioral despair in mice: a primary screening test for antidepressants". Archives Internationales de Pharmacodynamie et de Therapie 229 (2): 327 – 336. PMID 596982. • Petit-Demouliere B, Chenu F, Bourin M. (2005). "Forced swimming test in mice: a review of antidepressant activity.". Psychopharmacology (Berl) 177 (3): 245 – 255. doi:10.1007/s00213-004-2048-7. PMID 15609067.

Blacky pictures The Blacky pictures were a series of picture cards used by psychoanalysts in mid-Twentieth century America and elsewhere to investigate the extent to which children's personalities were shaped by Freudian psychosexual development. The drawings depicted a family of cartoon dogs in situations relating to psychoanalytic theory. The main character, 'Blacky', was accompanied by Tippy, a sibling, and a mother and father. Blacky's sex was decided by the experimenter, depending on the subject who was taking the test. The reaction of the children to the drawings was thought to indicate the extent of Freudian personality traits, such as an anal personality, castration anxiety or penis envy. The Blacky pictures' worth as a source of experimental data was questioned by psychologists, among them Hans Eysenck, and they since have fallen out of use.

Further reading • Hans Eysenck, Decline and Fall of the Freudian Empire, 1985

7


User:Bdelsanto/sandbox Aggression, in its abundance of forms, is arguably the greatest social problem facing this country and the world today (Hock 2009). This has sparked curiosity in many researchers who may believe that aggression is learned, which began one of the most famous and influential experiments conducted in the history of psychology (Hock 2009)[1], The Bobo Doll Experiment. The Bobo Doll Experiment was the name of two experiments conducted by Albert Bandura in 1961 and 1963 studying children´s behavior after watching a model punching a Bobo Doll and getting rewarded, punished or no consequences for it. The experiment is the empirical demonstration of Bandura's social learning theory, which states that behavior is learned from the environment through the process of observational learning. Children observe the people around them behaving in various ways (McLeod 2011)[2]. Social Learning Theory involves a process of attention, imitation, reinforcement and also identification . It shows that people not only learn by being rewarded or punished itself (Behaviorism), they can learn from watching somebody being rewarded or punished, too (Observational learning). An example that made headlines in 2007, after the video showing the hanging of Saddam Hussein was widely distributed. In an article by Tom Zeller (2007)[3] families around the world whose children had been exposed to the video attributed the tragic hanging deaths of their young boys to the video of Mr. Hussein. The experiments conducted by Bandura, Ross, & Ross (1961), are important because they sparked many more studies on the effects of social learning theory, such as the effects of media violence and aggression in children. This topic has become exceptionally popular in recent years as more and more violence has been allowed on television and videos games that children are subject to viewing. " In 1972, the Surgeon General's Scientific Advisory Committee on Television and Social Behavior concluded that television can, under some circumstances, for some children, lead to increased aggressiveness" (Heath, Kruttschnitt & Ward 1986)[4]. Studies done by Heath, Kruttschnitt & Ward (1986), who built their study upon past research of the connection between viewing television and aggression. These researchers were also successful in, controlling for factors such as socioeconomic status, intelligence, race, and mother's education, which did not eliminate the relationship between media exposure and aggression but in some cases actually strengthened it( Heath, Kruttschnitt & Ward 1986. According to Johnson et al. (2002)[5], three to five violent acts are depicted in an average hour of prime-time television and 20 to 25 violent acts are depicted in an average hour of children's television. Research has also indicated that viewing television violence is associated with aggressive behavior (Johnson et al.2002).

Experiments in 1961 Method

The subjects for this experiment were 36 boys and 36 girls from the Stanford University nursery school. All children were between the ages of 37 months- 69 months. The children were organized into 8 groups and a control group. 24 children were exposed to an aggressive model and 24 children were exposed to a non-aggressive model. The two groups were then both broken down into males and females. The groups were broken down even further to ensure that half of the children were exposed to models of their own sex and the other half were exposed to models of the opposite sex. The remaining 24 children were part of a control group. For the experiment, each child was exposed to the scenario individually, so as not to be influenced or distracted by classmates. The first part of the experiment involved bringing a child and the adult model into a playroom. In the playroom, the child was seated in one corner filled with highly appealing activities such as stickers and stamps.The adult model was seated in another corner containing a toy set, a mallet, and an inflatable Bobo doll. Before leaving the room, the experimenter explained to the child that the toys in the adult corner were only for the adult to play with.

8

User:Bdelsanto/sandbox During the aggressive model scenario, the adult would begin by playing with the toys for approximately one minute. After this time the adult begins to show aggression towards the Bobo doll. Examples of this include hitting the Bobo doll and using the toy mallet to hit the Bobo doll in the face. After a period of about 10 minutes, the experimenter came back into the room, dismissed the adult model, and took the child into another playroom. The non-aggressive adult model simply played with the small toys for the entire 10 minute-period. In this situation, the Bobo doll was completely ignored by the model then the child was taken out of the room. The next stage placed the child and experimenter into another room filled with interesting toys: a truck, dolls, and spinning top. There, the child was invited to play with the toys. After about 2 minutes the experimenter decides that the child is no longer allowed to play with the toys. This was done to build up frustration. The experimenter says that the child may play with the toys in the experimental room including both aggressive and non-aggressive toys. In the experimental room the child was allowed to play for the duration of 20 minutes while the experimenter evaluated the child’s play. The first measure recorded was based on physical aggression. This included punching or kicking the Bobo doll, sitting on the Bobo doll, hitting it with a mallet, and tossing it around the room. Verbal aggression was the second measure recorded. The judges counted each time the children imitated the aggressive adult model and recorded their results. The third measure was the amount of times the mallet was used to display other forms of aggression than hitting the doll. The final measure includes modes of aggression shown by the child that were not direct imitation of the role-model’s behavior. Results

Bandura found that the children exposed to the aggressive model were more likely to act in physically aggressive ways than those who were not exposed to the aggressive model. For those children exposed to the aggressive model, the number of imitative physical aggressions exhibited by the boys was 38.2 and 12.7 for the girls (Hock 2009). The results concerning gender differences strongly supported Bandura's prediction that children are more influenced by same-sex models. Boys exhibited more aggression when exposed to aggressive male models than boys exposed to aggressive female models. When exposed to aggressive male models, the number of aggressive instances exhibited by boys averaged 104 compared to 48.4 aggressive instances exhibited by boys exposed to aggressive female models. While the results for the girls show similar findings, the results were less drastic. When exposed to aggressive female models, the number of aggressive instances exhibited by girls averaged 57.7 compared to 36.3 aggressive instances exhibited by girls exposed to aggressive male models. Bandura also found that the children exposed to the aggressive model were more likely to act in verbally aggressive ways than those who were not exposed to the aggressive model. The number of imitative verbal aggressions exhibited by the boys was 17 times and 15.7 times by the girls(Hock 2009). In addition, the results indicated that the boys and girls who observed the non-aggressive model exhibited far less non-imitative mallet aggression than in the control group, which had no model. The experimenters came to the conclusion that children observing adult behavior are influenced to think that this type of behavior is acceptable thus weakening the child’s aggressive inhibitions. The result of reduced aggressive inhibitions in children means that they are more likely to respond to future situations in a more aggressive manner. Lastly, the evidence strongly supports that males have a tendency to be more aggressive than females. When all instances of aggression are tallied, males exhibited 270 aggressive instances compared to 128 aggressive instances exhibited by females (Hock 2009).

9

User:Bdelsanto/sandbox Critique

Scholars such as Ferguson (2010) [6] suggest the Bobo Doll studies are not studies of aggression at all, but rather that the children were motivated to imitate the adult in the belief the videos were instructions. In other words children were motivated by the desire to please adults rather than genuine aggression. Furthermore Ferguson has criticized the external validity of the study noting that bo-bo dolls are designed to be hit. The experiment was also biased in several areas which weakened the internal validity[7] 1. Selection bias Bandura’s subjects were all from the nursery of Stanford University. During the 1960s, the opportunity of studying in a university, especially one as prestigious as Stanford was a privilege that only the upper-middle class whites had. Besides, the racial bias and economic status of the whites and blacks were still very vast at that time. Generally only the upper-middle class and rich whites were able to afford putting their children in a nursery. Thus, the subjects would turn out to be mostly white and of similar backgrounds. 2. Unclear history of subjects The ethnicities of the subjects were never documented but Bandura and his colleagues made sweeping statements on their findings when explaining the aggression and violence trait among subgroups and lower socioeconomic communities. 3. Ambiguous temporal sequence As the data of the “real life aggression and control group conditions came from their 1961 study”,[7] parallel ongoing events including the mental maturation of the subjects could have been confused with the observations and results of the 1963 study. Bar-on, Broughton, Buttross, Corrigan, et al. (2001) explained that the underdeveloped frontal lobe of children below the age of 8 causes them to be unable to separate reality from fantasy. As an example, children up to the age of 12 believe that there are monsters in their closet or under the bed. They are also sometimes unable to distinguish dreams from reality.[8] Furthermore, biological theorists argue that the social learning theory completely ignores individual’s biological state by ignoring the uniqueness of an individual’s DNA, brain development, and learning differences.[9] According to Worthman and Loftus (1992), Bandura’s study was unethical and morally wrong as the subjects were manipulated to respond in an aggressive manner. They also find it to be no surprise that long-term implications are apparent due to the methods imposed in this experiment as the subjects were taunted and were not allowed to play with the toys and thus incited agitation and dissatisfaction. Hence, they were trained to be aggressive.[10] Although there have been other research which examine the effects of violent movies and video games such as Plagens et al.’s 1991 study on violent movies, “Feshbach and R.D. Singer believed that television actually decreases the amount of aggression in children” (Islom, 1998) – Catharsis effect. A study was made on juvenile boys for six weeks. Half were made to view violent movies throughout the period of six weeks while another half viewed non-violent movies for six weeks. The boy’s behavior was then observed and the result was boys who viewed violent movies were less aggressive than those who viewed non-violent movies. The conclusion drawn by Feshback and Singer was that those who viewed violent movies were less aggressive as they were able to transmit all their feelings and thoughts of aggression into the movie.

10


Experiments in 1963 Differences between learning and performing

Albert Bandura tested in the Bobo doll experiment in 1963 if there are differences in learning or just in performing when children see a model being rewarded/punished or experienced no consequences for aggressive behavior. The procedure of the experiment was very similar to the one in 1961. Children between the age of 2,5 and 6 years watched a film - a mediated model punched and screamed aggressively at a Bobo doll. Depending on the experimental group the film ended with a scene in which the model was rewarded with candies or punished with the warning “Don´t do it again”. In the neutral condition the film ended right after the punching scene.Then the children stayed in a room with many toys and a Bobo doll. The experimenter found that the children showed less often similar behavior to the model when they were shown the clip that ended with the punching scene as compared to the other conditions. Boys showed more imitative aggression than girls. That is the measure of the performance and it supports the results of the experiments in 1961 . After that, the experimenter asked the children to show what they have seen in the film. (In an earlier experiment with the same procedure the children were asked to describe the behavior. But imitation seems to be a better index for learning.) He did not find differences in the children´s demonstrating behavior depending on the movie. The experiment shows that rewards or punishment don´t influence learning or remembering information, they just influence if the behavior is performed or not. The differences between girls‘ and boys‘ imitating behavior got smaller. That is a sign of the fact that girls inhibit the punished behavior more than boys do.[11] Are children influenced by film-mediated aggressive models?

For many years media violence has been a hot topic concerning the influence over children and their aggressive behavior. In one study [12], in 1963, Albert Bandura, using children between the ages 3 and 6, tested the extent to which film-mediated aggressive models influenced imitative behavior. 48 girls and 48 boys were divided into 3 experimental groups and 1 control group. Group 1, watched a live model become aggressive towards the Bobo doll. Group 2, watched a film version of the human model become aggressive to the Bobo doll and group 3 watched a cartoon version of a cat become aggressive towards the Bobo doll. Each child watched the aggressive acts individually. Following the exposure to the models all fours groups of children were then individually placed in a room with an experimenter where they were exposed to mildly frustrating situation to elicit aggression. Next the children were allowed to play freely in an adjoining room, which was full of toys, including the Bobo doll and the “weapons” that were used by the models. The researchers observed the children and noted any interaction with the Bobo doll. Results showed that the children who had been exposed to the aggressive behavior, whether real-life, on film or cartoon, exhibited nearly twice as much aggressive behavior than the control group. It was also found that boys exhibited more total aggression than girls. The results of this experiment shed light on how influential media can be on children and their behavior.

11


Variations of the 'Bobo doll' experiment Due to numerous criticisms, Bandura replaced the ‘Bobo doll’ with a live clown. The young woman beat up a live clown in the video shown to preschool children and in turn when the children were led into another room where they found a live clown, they imitated the action in the video they had just watched.[13] Variation 1: In Friedrich and Stein (1972)’s ‘The Mister Rogers’ study: Procedures: A group of preschoolers watched Mister Rogers every weekday for four consecutive weeks. Result: Children from lower socioeconomic communities were easier to handle and more open about their feelings.[14] Variation 2: Loye, Gorney & Steele (1977) conducted variation of the ‘Bobo Doll’ Experiment using 183 married males aged between 20 to 70 years old. Procedure: The participants were to watch one of five TV programs for 20 hours over a period of one week while their wives secretly observed and recorded their behavior; helpful vs. hurtful behaviors when not watching the program. Result: Participants of violent programs showed significant increase in aggressive moods and “hurtful behavior” while participants who viewed pro-social programs were more passive and demonstrated a significant increase of “emotional arousal”. Variation 3: Black and Bevan’s research (1992) had movie-goers fill out an aggression questionnaire either before they entered the cinema and after the film; a violent film and a romantic film. Procedure: Subjects were randomly selected as they went to view violent and romantic film. They were asked to fill out pretest and posttest questionnaires on their emotional state. Result: Those who watched violent films were already aggressive before viewing the film but it was aggravated after the viewing while there was no change in those who viewed romantic films. Variation 4: Anderson & Dill (2000) randomly assigned college students to play two games; Wolfenstein, a science fiction first-person shooter game and Tetris. Results of this study were inconsistent, and this study has sometimes been criticized for using poorly validated aggression measures, and exaggerating the consistency of its findings (Ferguson, 2009). Variation 5: Bartholow and Anderson (2009)[15], examined how playing violent video games affect levels of aggression in a laboratory. Procedure: A total of 22 men and 21 women were randomly assigned to play either a violent or non-violent video game for ten minutes. Then competed in a reaction time task . Punishment level set by opponents measured aggression. Results: The results supported the researchers hypothesis that playing the violent video game would result in more aggression than the non-violent game. In addition, results also pointed to a potential difference in aggressive style between men and women.

12


Discussion From this experiment, Bandura established that there are 4 processes that are apparent in the modeling process[13] 1. Attention One has to be paying attention and not distracted to be able to absorb knowledge. Physical factors such as being tired, having a hangover, being sick, nervous, extremely excited or distracted by a competing stimuli[13] would mar one’s focus on a subject. For example, when a student is in love, he or she would only be thinking of his/her loved one. All else is a blur; hear but not listening, see but not looking, eat but not tasting, breathing but not smelling and so on. 2. Retention The proof that one has been paying attention is when one is able to remember the intended stimuli. Imagery and language play a great part here. Memory is stored in “the form of mental images or verbal descriptions.” Once it is stored, the memory can be recalled later and be replicated in one’s actions and behavior. 3. Reproduction This stage of modeling another requires one to have the ability to duplicate the action or/and behavior. A wheelchair bound person would not be able to duplicate a person doing cartwheels but one who is able to use all their limbs might be able to improve their cartwheel techniques after watching the video of a gymnast doing cartwheels. Similarly, after acquiring the ability to draw, one can improve their skills by watching an expert drawing or by emulating the instructions in a drawing book. However, this does not mean that day-dreaming is useless. It in fact plays a part in refining our skills. “Our abilities improve even when we just imagine ourselves performing! Many athletes, for example, imagine their performance in their mind’s eye prior to actually performing”,[16] 4. Motivation a. Nonetheless, the most important part of the modeling process is motivation! If one is not motivated to emulate an action or behavior, attention would not be there to start with. According to Bandura, there are two categories of motives[17] -positive [Past reinforcements, Promised reinforcements and Vicarious reinforcements] and negative [Past punishment, Promised punishment and vicarious punishment] both of which are based on traditional behaviorism such as BF Skinner’s Operant Conditioning and Pavlov’s Classical Conditioning. A good example of this is portrayed in an article by Horner, Bhattacharyya & O'connor (2008)[18], after describing a scenario in a classroom, the children were exposed to different types of reinforcement without really knowing it. "When Jasmine had to leave the sand table for pouring sand on the floor, show was enactively punished. Tyler, Mackensie, and Juan were vicariously punished by observing Jasmine, since they did not pour sand on the floor (Horner, Bhattavharyya & O'Connor 2008). However, there are as many experiments conducted which support as well as nullify Bandura’s hypothesis. So far, all the variations of Bandura’s Bobo Doll Experiment have only focused on a maximum of three important factors; a combination of background, personal temperament, environment, interpersonal and intrapersonal relationships. Yet, a pretest of phobias and daily mood assessment were not assessed before the experiment. Thus, we can safely say that until an experiment takes all the factors into consideration and conducts a longitudinal assessment, Bandura’s hypothesis is still on the fence.

13


=See also • • • •

Developmental Psychology Imitation Observational Learning Role model

References [1] Hock, R. R. (2009). Reading 12: See aggression... do aggression. Forty studies that changed psychology: explorations into the history of psychological research (6th ed., pp. 85-92). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson/Prentice Hall. [2] McLeod, S. (2011.). Albert Bandura | social learning theory. Simply Psychology - Psychology Articles for Students. Retrieved October 29, 2012, from http:/ / www.simplypsychology. org/ bandura.html [3] Teller. Z. (2007, January 15). Saddam video is blamed for deaths of more children - NYTimes.com. Breaking News - The Lede Blog NYTimes.com. Retrieved October 29, 2012, from http:/ / thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/ 2007/ 01/ 15/ saddam-video-is-blamed-for-deaths-of-more-children/ [4] Heath, L., Kruttschnitt, C., & Ward, D. (1986). Television and violent criminal behavior. Violence and Victims, 1(2), 177+. Retrieved October 26, 2012, from the Questia database [5] Johnson, J., Cohen, P., Smailes, E., Kasen, S., & Brook, J. (2002, March 29). Television viewing and aggressive behavior during adolescence and adulthood.. Science, 295, 2468-2471. Retrieved October 28, 2012, from http:/ / www.highbeam.com/ doc/ 1G1-84841663. html?refid=bibme_hf [6] "Blazing Angels or Resident Evil? Can Violent Video Games Be a Force for Good?", Christopher J. Ferguson, Review of General Psychology , 14, 68-81 [7] Hart, K.E. (2006). Critical Analysis of an Original Writing on Social Learning Theory: Imitation of Film-Mediated Aggressive Models By: Albert Bandura, Dorothea Ross and Sheila A.Ross (1963). Retrieved October 6, 2010 from the world wide web:http:/ / www.nationalforum. com/ Electronic%20Journal%20Volumes/ Hart,%20Karen%20E,%20Imitation%20of%20Film-Mediated%20Aggressive%20Models.pdf [8] Sharon & Woolley (2004). Do Monsters Dream? Young Children’s Understanding of the Fantasy/Reality Distinction. Journal of Developmental Psychology, 22, 293-310. Retrieved October 4, 2010 from the British Psychological Society database. [9] Isom, M.D. (1998). Albert Bandura: The Social Learning Theory. Retrieved October 6, 2010 from the world wide web: http:/ / www. criminology.fsu.edu/ crimtheory/ bandura.htm [10] Worthman, C., & Loftus, E. (1992), Psychology: McGraw-Hill: New York. [11] Bandura, A. (1965). Influence of a models´ reinforcement contingencies on the acquisition of imitative responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 1.No.6, 589-595. [12] Bandura, A. Ross, D. Ross, S. (1963). Imitation of Film-Mediated Aggressive Models. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol.66, No.1,3-11 [13] Boeree, C.G. (2006). Personality Theories: Albert Bandura. Retrieved October 6, 2010 from the world wide web: http:/ / webspace.ship. edu/ cgboer/ bandura.html [14] Yates, B.L. (1999). Modeling Strategies for Prosocial Television: A Review. Retrieved October 6, 2010 from the world wide web: http:/ / www.westga.edu/ ~byates/ prosocia.htm [15] Bartholow, B., & Anderson, C. (2001). Effects of violent video games on aggressive behavior: potential sex differences. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 283-290. [16] Boeree [17] Bandura [18] Horner, S., Bhattacharyya, S., & O'Connor, E. (2008). Modeling: it's more than just imitation. Childhood Education, 84(4), 219+. Retrieved October 29, 2012, from http:/ / www.questia.com/ read/ 1G1-178631584/ modeling-it-s-more-than-just-imitation

14

Bobo doll experiment

Bobo doll experiment The Bobo doll experiment was the name of two experiments conducted by Albert Bandura in 1961 and 1963 studying children´s behavior after watching a model punching a bobo doll and getting rewarded, punished or suffering no consequences for it. The experiment is the empirical demonstration of Bandura's social learning theory. It shows that people not only learn by being rewarded or punished itself (Behaviorism), they can learn from watching somebody being rewarded or punished, too (Observational learning). The experiments are important because they sparked many more studies on the effects of observational learning and they have practical implication e.g. how children can be influenced watching violent media.

Experiments in 1961 Method

The subjects for this experiment[1] were 36 boys and 36 girls from the Stanford University nursery school. All children were between the ages of 37 months- 69 months. The children were organized into 8 groups and a control group. 24 children were exposed to an aggressive model and 24 children were exposed to a non-aggressive model. The two groups were then divided into males and females which ensured that half of the children were exposed to models of their own sex and the other half were exposed to models of the opposite sex. The remaining 24 children were part of a control group. For the experiment, each child was exposed to the scenario individually, so as not to be influenced or distracted by classmates. The first part of the experiment involved bringing a child and the adult model into a playroom. In the playroom, the child was seated in one corner filled with highly appealing activities such as stickers and stamps.The adult model was seated in another corner containing a toy set, a mallet, and an inflatable Bobo doll. Before leaving the room, the experimenter explained to the child that the toys in the adult corner were only for the adult to play with. During the aggressive model scenario, the adult would begin by playing with the toys for approximately one minute. After this time the adult would start to show aggression towards the Bobo doll. Examples of this included hitting/punching the Bobo doll and using the toy mallet to hit the Bobo doll in the face. The aggressive model would also verbal aggress the Bobo doll yelling "Sock him," "Hit him down," "Kick him," "Throw him in the air," or "Pow". After a period of about 10 minutes, the experimenter came back into the room, dismissed the adult model, and took the child into another playroom. The non-aggressive adult model simply played with the other toys for the entire 10 minute-period. In this situation, the Bobo doll was completely ignored by the model, then the child was taken out of the room. The next stage of the experiment, took place with the child and experimenter in another room filled with interesting toy such as trucks, dolls, and a spinning top. The child was invited to play with them. After about 2 minutes the experimenter decides that the child is no longer allowed to play with the toys, explaining that she is reserving that toy for the other children. This was done to build up frustration in the child. The experimenter said that the child could instead play with the toys in the experimental room (this included both aggressive and non-aggressive toys). In the experimental room the child was allowed to play for the duration of 20 minutes while the experimenter evaluated the child’s play. The first measure recorded was based on physical aggression such as punching, kicking, sitting on the Bobo doll, hitting it with a mallet, and tossing it around the room. Verbal aggression was the second measure recorded. The judges counted each time the children imitated the aggressive adult model and recorded their results. The third measure was the amount of times the mallet was used to display other forms of aggression than hitting the doll. The

15

Bobo doll experiment final measure included modes of aggression shown by the child that were not direct imitation of the role-model ’s behavior. Results

Bandura found that the children exposed to the aggressive model were more likely to act in physically aggressive ways than those who were not exposed to the aggressive model. For those children exposed to the aggressive model, the number of imitative physical aggressions exhibited by the boys was 38.2 and 12.7 for the girls (Hock 2009). The results concerning gender differences strongly supported Bandura's prediction that children are more influenced by same-sex models. Results also showed that boys exhibited more aggression when exposed to aggressive male models than boys exposed to aggressive female models. When exposed to aggressive male models, the number of aggressive instances exhibited by boys averaged 104 compared to 48.4 aggressive instances exhibited by boys who were exposed to aggressive female models. While the results for the girls show similar findings, the results were less drastic. When exposed to aggressive female models, the number of aggressive instances exhibited by girls averaged 57.7 compared to 36.3 aggressive instances exhibited by girls who were exposed to aggressive male models. Bandura also found that the children exposed to the aggressive model were more likely to act in verbally aggressive ways than those who were not exposed to the aggressive model. The number of imitative verbal aggressions exhibited by the boys was 17 times and 15.7 times by the girls(Hock 2009). In addition, the results indicated that the boys and girls who observed the non-aggressive model exhibited far less non-imitative mallet aggression than in the control group, which had no model. The experimenters came to the conclusion that children observing adult behavior are influenced to think that this type of behavior is acceptable thus weakening the child’s aggressive inhibitions. The result of reduced aggressive inhibitions in children means that they are more likely to respond to future situations in a more aggressive manner. Lastly, the evidence strongly supports that males have a tendency to be more aggressive than females. When all instances of aggression are tallied, males exhibited 270 aggressive instances compared to 128 aggressive instances exhibited by females (Hock 2009). Critique

Scholars such as Ferguson (2010) [2] suggest the Bobo Doll studies are not studies of aggression at all, but rather that the children were motivated to imitate the adult in the belief the videos were instructions. In other words children were motivated by the desire to please adults rather than genuine aggression. Furthermore Ferguson has criticized the external validity of the study noting that bo-bo dolls are designed to be hit. The experiment was also biased in several areas which weakened the internal validity[3] 1. Selection bias Bandura’s subjects were all from the nursery of Stanford University. During the 1960s, the opportunity of studying in a university, especially one as prestigious as Stanford was a privilege that only the upper-middle class whites had. Besides, the racial bias and economic status of the whites and blacks were still very vast at that time. Generally only the upper-middle class and rich whites were able to afford putting their children in a nursery. Thus, the subjects would turn out to be mostly white and of similar backgrounds. 2. Unclear history of subjects The ethnicities of the subjects were never documented but Bandura and his colleagues made sweeping statements on their findings when explaining the aggression and violence trait among subgroups and lower socioeconomic communities. 3. Ambiguous temporal sequence

16

Bobo doll experiment As the data of the “real life aggression and control group conditions came from their 1961 study”,[3] parallel ongoing events including the mental maturation of the subjects could have been confused with the observations and results of the 1963 study. Bar-on, Broughton, Buttross, Corrigan, et al. (2001) explained that the underdeveloped frontal lobe of children below the age of 8 causes them to be unable to separate reality from fantasy. As an example, children up to the age of 12 believe that there are monsters in their closet or under the bed. They are also sometimes unable to distinguish dreams from reality.[4] Furthermore, biological theorists argue that the social learning theory completely ignores individual’s biological state by ignoring the uniqueness of an individual’s DNA, brain development, and learning differences.[5] According to Worthman and Loftus (1992), Bandura’s study was unethical and morally wrong as the subjects were manipulated to respond in an aggressive manner. They also find it to be no surprise that long-term implications are apparent due to the methods imposed in this experiment as the subjects were taunted and were not allowed to play with the toys and thus incited agitation and dissatisfaction. Hence, they were trained to be aggressive.[6] Although there have been other research which examine the effects of violent movies and video games such as Plagens et al.’s 1991 study on violent movies, “Feshbach and R.D. Singer believed that television actually decreases the amount of aggression in children” (Islom, 1998) – Catharsis effect. A study was made on juvenile boys for six weeks. Half were made to view violent movies throughout the period of six weeks while another half viewed non-violent movies for six weeks. The boy’s behavior was then observed and the result was boys who viewed violent movies were less aggressive than those who viewed non-violent movies. The conclusion drawn by Feshback and Singer was that those who viewed violent movies were less aggressive as they were able to transmit all their feelings and thoughts of aggression into the movie.

Experiments in 1963 Differences between learning and performing

Albert Bandura tested in the Bobo doll experiment in 1963 if there are differences in learning or just in performing when children see a model being rewarded/punished or experienced no consequences for aggressive behavior. The procedure of the experiment was very similar to the one in 1961. Children between the age of 2,5 and 6 years watched a film - a mediated model punched and screamed aggressively at a Bobo doll. Depending on the experimental group the film ended with a scene in which the model was rewarded with candies or punished with the warning “Don´t do it again”. In the neutral condition the film ended right after the punching scene.Then the children stayed in a room with many toys and a Bobo doll. The experimenter found that the children showed less often similar behavior to the model when they were shown the clip that ended with the punching scene as compared to the other conditions. Boys showed more imitative aggression than girls. That is the measure of the performance and it supports the results of the experiments in 1961 . After that, the experimenter asked the children to show what they have seen in the film. (In an earlier experiment with the same procedure the children were asked to describe the behavior. But imitation seems to be a better index for learning.) He did not find differences in the children´s demonstrating behavior depending on the movie. The experiment shows that rewards or punishment don´t influence learning or remembering information, they just influence if the behavior is performed or not. The differences between girls‘ and boys‘ imitating behavior got smaller. That is a sign of the fact that girls inhibit the punished behavior more than boys do.[7]

17

Bobo doll experiment Are children influenced by film-mediated aggressive models?

For many years media violence has been a hot topic concerning the influence over children and their aggressive behavior. In one study [8], in 1963, Albert Bandura, using children between the ages 3 and 6, tested the extent to which film-mediated aggressive models influenced imitative behavior. 48 girls and 48 boys were divided into 3 experimental groups and 1 control group. Group 1, watched a live model become aggressive towards the Bobo doll. Group 2, watched a film version of the human model become aggressive to the Bobo doll and group 3 watched a cartoon version of a cat become aggressive towards the Bobo doll. Each child watched the aggressive acts individually. Following the exposure to the models all fours groups of children were then individually placed in a room with an experimenter where they were exposed to a mildly frustrating situation to elicit aggression. Next the children were allowed to play freely in an adjoining room, which was full of toys, including the Bobo doll and the “weapons” that were used by the models. The researchers observed the children and noted any interaction with the Bobo doll. Results showed that the children who had been exposed to the aggressive behavior, whether real-life, on film or cartoon, exhibited nearly twice as much aggressive behavior than the control group. It was also found that boys exhibited more overall aggression than girls. The results of this experiment shed light on how influential media can be on children and their behavior.

Variations of the 'Bobo doll' experiment Due to numerous criticisms, Bandura replaced the ‘Bobo doll’ with a live clown. The young woman beat up a live clown in the video shown to preschool children and in turn when the children were led into another room where they found a live clown, they imitated the action in the video they had just watched.[9] Variation 1: In Friedrich and Stein (1972)’s ‘The Mister Rogers’ study: Procedures: A group of preschoolers watched Mister Rogers every weekday for four consecutive weeks. Result: Children from lower socioeconomic communities were easier to handle and more open about their feelings.[10] Variation 2: Loye, Gorney & Steele (1977) conducted variation of the ‘Bobo Doll’ Experiment using 183 married males aged between 20 to 70 years old. Procedure: The participants were to watch one of five TV programs for 20 hours over a period of one week while their wives secretly observed and recorded their behavior; helpful vs. hurtful behaviors when not watching the program. Result: Participants of violent programs showed significant increase in aggressive moods and “hurtful behavior” while participants who viewed pro-social programs were more passive and demonstrated a significant increase of “emotional arousal”. Variation 3: Black and Bevan’s research (1992) had movie-goers fill out an aggression questionnaire either before they entered the cinema and after the film; a violent film and a romantic film. Procedure: Subjects were randomly selected as they went to view violent and romantic film. They were asked to fill out pretest and posttest questionnaires on their emotional state. Result: Those who watched violent films were already aggressive before viewing the film but it was aggravated after the viewing while there was no change in those who viewed romantic films. Variation 4:

18

Bobo doll experiment Anderson & Dill (2000) randomly assigned college students to play two games; Wolfenstein, a science fiction first-person shooter game and Tetris. Results of this study were inconsistent, and this study has sometimes been criticized for using poorly validated aggression measures, and exaggerating the consistency of its findings (Ferguson, 2009). Variation 5: Bartholow and Anderson (2009)[11], examined how playing violent video games affect levels of aggression in a laboratory. Procedure: A total of 22 men and 21 women were randomly assigned to play either a violent or non-violent video game for ten minutes. Then competed in a reaction time task . Punishment level set by opponents measured aggression. Results: The results supported the researchers hypothesis that playing the violent video game would result in more aggression than the non-violent game. In addition, results also pointed to a potential difference in aggressive style between men and women.

Bobo Doll A Bobo doll is an inflatable toy that is about 5 feet tall and is usually made of a soft durable vinyl or plastic. The bobo doll was most often painted to look like a clown. The doll was designed to be bottom weighted so that if it were hit, it would fall over then immediately lift back up to a standing position. It first came on the market in the 1960's.

References [1] Bandura, A. Ross, D., & Ross,S.A (1961). Transmission of aggression through the imitation of aggressive models. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63, 575-582 [2] "Blazing Angels or Resident Evil? Can Violent Video Games Be a Force for Good?", Christopher J. Ferguson, Review of General Psychology , 14, 68-81 Bobo doll-en [3] Hart, K.E. (2006). Critical Analysis of an Original Writing on Social Learning Theory: Imitation of Film-Mediated Aggressive Models By: Albert Bandura, Dorothea Ross and Sheila A.Ross (1963). Retrieved October 6, 2010 from the world wide web:http:/ / www.nationalforum.com/ Electronic%20Journal%20Volumes/ Hart,%20Karen%20E,%20Imitation%20of%20Film-Mediated%20Aggressive%20Models.pdf [4] Sharon & Woolley (2004). Do Monsters Dream? Young Children’s Understanding of the Fantasy/Reality Distinction. Journal of Developmental Psychology, 22, 293-310. Retrieved October 4, 2010 from the British Psychological Society database. [5] Isom, M.D. (1998). Albert Bandura: The Social Learning Theory. Retrieved October 6, 2010 from the world wide web: http:/ / www. criminology.fsu.edu/ crimtheory/ bandura.htm [6] Worthman, C., & Loftus, E. (1992), Psychology: McGraw-Hill: New York. [7] Bandura, A. (1965). Influence of a models´ reinforcement contingencies on the acquisition of imitative responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 1.No.6, 589-595. [8] Bandura, A. Ross, D. Ross, S. (1963). Imitation of Film-Mediated Aggressive Models. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol.66, No.1,3-11 [9] Boeree, C.G. (2006). Personality Theories: Albert Bandura. Retrieved October 6, 2010 from the world wide web: http:/ / webspace.ship.edu/ cgboer/ bandura.html [10] Yates, B.L. (1999). Modeling Strategies for Prosocial Television: A Review. Retrieved October 6, 2010 from the world wide web: http:/ / www.westga.edu/ ~byates/ prosocia.htm [11] Bartholow, B., & Anderson, C. (2001). Effects of violent video games on aggressive behavior: potential sex differences. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 283-290.

19

Cognitive chronometry

20

Cognitive chronometry refers to the systematic measurement of response time as a means of illuminating either mental operations or mental associations. Two measuring instruments relying on cognitive chronometry are the Implicit Association Test, or IAT, and the Timed Antagonistic Response Alethiometer, or TARA. Cognitive chronometry

Conflict procedure Animal testing

Main articles


Biomedical Research Animal rights/Animal welfare Animals (Scientific Procedures) Great ape research ban International trade in primates Controversial experiments Britches · Brown Dog affair


Companies

Jackson Laboratory Charles River Laboratories, Inc. Covance · Harlan Huntingdon Life Sciences UK lab animal suppliers Nafovanny · Shamrock

Conflict procedure

21 Groups/campaigns AALAS · AAAS · ALF

Americans for Medical Progress Boyd Group · BUAV Dr Hadwen Trust Foundation for Biomedical Research · FRAME National Anti-Vivisection Society PETA · Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine Primate Freedom Project Pro-Test SPEAK · SHAC Speaking of Research Understanding Animal Research Writers/activists

Tipu Aziz · Michael Balls Neal Barnard · Colin Blakemore Simon Festing · Gill Langley Ingrid Newkirk · Bernard Rollin Jerry Vlasak · Syed Ziaur Rahman Categories Animal testing · Animal rights



The conflict procedure is an experiment widely used in scientific research to quantify anxiety levels through measuring changes in punished/unpunished responding. It is often used to screen drugs for anxiolytic potential.

References

Cyranoid

Cyranoid Cyranoids are "people who do not speak thoughts originating in their own central nervous system: Rather, the words

they speak originate in the mind of another person who transmits these words to the cyranoid by radio transmission.".[1] The 'cyranoid' concept was created by psychologist Stanley Milgram, who during the late 1970s experimented with various social authority/obedience phenomena involving cyranoids. He showed the 'cyranic illusion', namely, that people are very reluctant to believe that someone they are face-to-face with is being told what to say by an in-the-ear radio. There are many possible cyranoid configurations.[2] Given that the cyranoid is controlled by a source and interacts with a target the possible configurations are possible: the cyranoid is known/unknown to the target or source; the target is known/unknown to the source or cyranoid; and the source is known/unknown to the target or cyranoid. The term Cyranoid itself refers to the Edmond Rostand play Cyrano de Bergerac , where Cyrano coaches Christian from hiding, as Christian attempts to woo Roxane. [1] Milgram, S. (1984). Cyranoids. In Milgram (Ed), The individual in a social world. New York: McGraw-Hill [2] Mitchell, R., Gillespie, A. & O'Neill, B. (2011). Cyranic contraptions (http:/ / lse.academia.edu/ AlexGillespie/ Papers/ 1347725/ Cyranic_contraptions_using_personality_surrogates_to_explore_ontologically_and_socially_dynamic_contexts). DESIRE'11, Eindhoven.

Eriksen flanker task The term Eriksen Flanker Task refers to a set of response inhibition tests used in cognitive psychology to assess the ability to suppress responses that are inappropriate in a particular context. In the tests, a directional response (generally left or right) is made to a central target stimulus. The target is flanked by non-target stimuli which correspond either to the same directional response as the target (congruent flankers) or to the opposite response (incongruent flankers). It is found that response times are slower for incongruent stimuli than for congruent stimuli.

Versions In the original test described by Eriksen and Eriksen in 1974,[1] letter stimuli were used. Subjects were instructed to make a directional responses to certain letters, for example a right response to the letters H and K, and a left response to S and C. Each stimulus consisted of a set of seven letters, with the target in the central position. Examples of congruent stimuli would be HHHHHHH and CCCSCCC, where both the target and the flankers correspond to the same response. Examples of incongruent flanker stimuli HHHSHHH and CCCHCCC , where the central target letter and the flankers correspond to opposite responses. Other variants have used numbers,[2] or colour patches [3] as stimuli. These examples all use an arbitrary mapping between the stimulus and the response. Another possibility is to use a natural mapping, with arrows as stimuli. For example, Kopp et al. (1994)[4] used left and right arrows, with flanker stimuli above and below the target. The flankers could be arrows pointing in the same direction as the target (congruent) the opposite direction (incongruent) or squares (neutral). More commonly, flankers have been arranged in a horizontal array, as with letter stumuli, so <<<<< would be a congruent stimulus, <<><< an incongruent stimulus.[5]

22

Eriksen flanker task

Studies The flanker paradigm was originally introduced as a way of studying the cognitive processes involved in detection and recognition of targets in the presence of distracting information, or "noise". Earlier work had used visual search,[6] but this makes it difficult to separate the effects of distraction from the effects of the search process. In the flanker paradigm, the position of the target is always known —there is no search process. Nonetheless interference still occurs, so it can be studied independently of search mechanisms. Eriksen and Schultz (1979) [7] varied a number of features of the flanker tests, for example the size and contrast of the letters, or the use of forward or backward masking. They proposed a continuous flow model of perception in which information is processed in parallel for different stimulus elements, and accumulates over time until sufficient information is available to determine a response. More recent work in this area has used neurophysiological measures such as event-related potentials [8] or imaging techniques such as fMRI.[9] Many studies have investigated the effects of acute drug administration on Eriksen flanker performance. For example, Ramaekers et al. (1992) [10] used an on-the-road driving tests, and several laboratory tests including the letter version of the Eriksen task to assess the effects of two antihistamines and alcohol on driving-related skills. The flanker test was considered relevant, because dealing with distracting information is an important part of safe driving. Both alcohol and the antihistamine cetirizine impaired performance in the test measures, and their effects were additive. The non-sedating antihistamine loratidine had no effect on any of the measures studied. The arrows version of the flanker test has also been evaluated as a method of detecting impairment due to alcohol and drugs in drivers at the roadside.[11] Various psychiatric and neurological conditions affect performance on flanker tasks, for example acute schizophrenia [12] and Parkinson's disease.[13]

References [1] Eriksen, B. A., Eriksen, C. W. (1974). "Effects of noise letters upon identification of a target letter in a non- search task". Perception and Psychophysics 16: 143 – 149. [2] Lindgren, M., Stenberg, G., & Rosen, I. (1996). "Effects of nicotine in visual attention tasks". Human Psychopharmacology 11: 47 – 51. [3] Rafal, R., Gershberg, F., Egly, R., Ivry, R., Kingstone, A., & Ro, T. (1996). "Response channel activation and the lateral prefrontal cortex". Neuropsychologia 34: 1197 – 1202. [4] Kopp, B., Mattler, U., & Rist, F. (1994). "Selective attention and response competition in schizophrenic patients". Psychiatry Research 53: 129 – 139. [5] Ridderinkhof, K. R., Band, G. P., & Logan, D. (1999). "A study of adaptive behavior: effects of age and irrelevant information on the ability to inhibit one's actions". Acta psychologica 101: 315 – 337. [6] Eriksen, C.W. & Spencer, T. (1969). "Rate of information processing in visual perception: Some results and methodological considerations". Journal of Experimental Psychology 79 (2): Supplement 1 – 16. [7] Eriksen, C.W. & Schultz, D.W. (1979). "Information processing in visual search: A continuous flow conception and experimental results.". Perception & Psychophysics 25: 249 – 263. [8] Heil, M., Osman, A., Wiegalman, J., Rolke, B., & Hennighausen, E. (2000). "N200 in the Eriksen-Task: Inhibitory Executive Processes?". Journal of Psychophysiology 14: 218 – 225. [9] Ullsperger, M. & von Cramon, D. Y. (2001). "Subprocesses of performance monitoring: a dissociation of error processing and response competition revealed by event-related fMRI and ERPs.". Neuroimage 14: 1387 – 1401. [10] Ramaekers, J. G., Uiterwijk, M. M. C., & O'Hanlon, J. F. (1992). "Effects of loratadine and cetirizine on actual driving and psychometric test performance, and EEG during driving,". European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 42: 363 – 369. [11] Tiplady, B., Degia, A., & Dixon, P. (2005). "Assessment of driver impairment: Evaluation of a two-choice tester using ethanol.". Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 8: 299 – 310. [12] Jones, S.H., Helmsley, D.R. & Gray,J.A. (1991). "Impairment in selective attention or in the influence of prior learning?". British Journal of Psychiatry 159: 415 – 421. [13] Wylie, S. A., van den Wildenberg, W. P. M., Ridderinkhof, K. R., Bashore, T. R., Powell, V. D., Manning, C. A., & Wooten, G. F. (2009). "The effect of speed-accuracy strategy on response interference control in Parkinson's disease,". Neuropsychologia 47: 1844 – 1853.

23

Fordham Experiment

Fordham Experiment The Fordham Experiment was an experiment done as part of a course on The Effects of Television by Eric McLuhan and Harley Parker at Fordham University in 1967 or 1968. The purpose of the experiment was to demonstrate to the students that there was a difference between the effects of movies and those of TV on an audience, and to try to ascertain what some of those differences might be. The distinction was thought to occur because movies present reflected light ('light on') to the viewer, while a TV picture is back lit ('light through'). The experimenters showed two movies, a documentary and a film with little story line about horses, sequentially to two groups of equivalent size, and had the viewers write a half a page of comments of their reactions. The groups' reactions to one of the films were roughly similar. Distinct reactions, however, were found for the other. Generally, the 'light on' (movie) presentation was perceived as having lowered tactility and heightened visuality, as compared to the heightened tactility and lessened visuality of the 'light through' (TV) presentation. Visualility dropped from 'light on' to 'light-through': • Comments on cinematic technique dropped from 36% with 'light on' to below 20% with 'light-through' • Comments on specific scenes dropped from 51% to 20% • Objective comments on a 'sense of power' in the animals dropped from 60% to 20% Tactility increased from 'light on' to 'light through': • Comments on sensory evocation and a sense of involvement and tenseness increased from 6% with 'light on' to 36% with 'light through' • Comments on a feeling of a loss of sense of time rose from 6% to 40% • Comments on a sense of total involvement rose from 15% to 64% • Comments on a sense of total emotional involvement rose from 12% to 48% The researchers concluded that the 'light on' subjects exhibited a sensory shift characterized by a drop in visual sense and an increase in tactile sense. Although this experiment has validity, it does not deal directly with the central point made by Marshall McLuhan that the cinema image, typically a 35mm frame, is made up of millions of dots, or emulsion, and is much more 'saturated' than the lines and pixels of the TV image. McLuhan argued that the TV screen invited the audience to 'fill-in' a low-intensity image, much like following the bounding lines of a cartoon. That made TV more 'involving' and more tactile. The high-intensity film image allows for much more information on screen, but also demands a higher degree of visual perception and cognition. In that sense, he said, film is a 'hot' medium, TV a 'cool' bath.

References • McLuhan, Eric, "The Fordham Experiment" [1], Proceedings of the Media Ecology Association , Volume 1, 2000. (original paper c.1967)

References [1] http:/ / www.media-ecology.org/ publications/ MEA_proceedings/ v1/ Fordham_experiment.html

24

Ganzfeld experiment

25

Ganzfeld experiment A ganzfeld experiment (from the German for “entire field”) is a technique used in the field of parapsychology to test individuals for extrasensory perception (ESP). It uses homogeneous and unpatterned sensory stimulation to produce the ganzfeld effect, an effect similar to sensory deprivation.[1] The ganzfeld effect has been utilized in many studies of the neuroscience of perception, not only parapsychology. The deprivation of patterned sensory input is said to be conducive to inwardly generated impressions.[2] The technique was devised by Wolfgang Metzger in the 1930s as part of his investigation into the gestalt theory.[3]

Participant in a ganzfeld telepathy experiment

Parapsychologists such as Dean Radin and Daryl Bem say that ganzfeld experiments have yielded results that deviate from randomness to a significant degree, and that these results present some of the strongest quantifiable evidence for telepathy to date.[4] Critics such as Susan Blackmore and Ray Hyman say that the results are inconclusive and consistently indistinguishable from null r esults.[5][6][7]

Historical context The ganzfeld experiments are among the most recent in parapsychology for testing the existence of and affecting factors of telepathy, which is defined in parapsychology as the paranormal acquisition of information concerning the thoughts, feelings or activity of another person.[8] In the early 1970s, Charles Honorton had been investigating ESP and dreams at the Maimonides Medical Center and began using the ganzfeld technique as a more efficient way to achieve a state of sensory deprivation in which it is hypothesised that psi can work. [9] Since the first full experiment was published by Honorton and Sharon Harper in the Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research in 1974, the ganzfeld has remained a mainstay of parapsychological research.

Experimental procedure In a typical ganzfeld experiment, a "receiver" is placed in a room relaxing in a comfortable chair with halved ping-pong balls over the eyes, having a red light shone on them. The receiver also wears a set of headphones through which white or pink noise (static) is played. The receiver is in this state of mild sensory deprivation for half an hour. During this time, a "sender" observes a randomly chosen target and tries to mentally send this information to the receiver. The receiver speaks out loud during the thirty minutes, describing what he or she can see. This is recorded by the experimenter (who is blind to the target) either by recording onto tape or by taking notes, and is used to help the receiver during the judging procedure. In the judging procedure, the receiver is taken out of the ganzfeld state and given a set of possible targets, from which they must decide which one most resembled the images they witnessed. Most commonly there are three decoys along with a copy of the target itself, giving an expected overall hit rate of 25% over several dozens of trials.[10]

Ganzfeld experiment

Analysis of results Early experiments

Between 1974 and 1982, 42 ganzfeld experiments were performed.[11][12] In 1982, Charles Honorton presented a paper at the annual convention of the Parapsychological Association that summarized the results of the ganzfeld experiments up to that date, and concluded that they represented sufficient evidence to demonstrate the existence of psi. Ray Hyman, a skeptical psychologist, disagreed. The two men later independently analyzed the same studies, and both presented meta-analyses of them in 1985. Honorton thought that the data at that time indicated the existence of psi, and Hyman did not.[11][13] Hyman's criticisms were that the ganzfeld papers did not describe optimal protocols, nor were they always accompanied by the appropriate statistical analysis. He presented in his paper a factor analysis that he said demonstrated a link between success and three flaws, namely: Flaws in randomization for choice of target; flaws in randomization in judging procedure; and insufficient documentation. Honorton asked a statistician, David Saunders, to look at Hyman's factor analysis and he concluded that the number of experiments was too small to complete a factor analysis.[14] In 1986, Hyman and Honorton published A Joint Communiqué , in which they agreed that though the results of the ganzfeld experiments were not due to chance or selective reporting, replication of the studies was necessary before final conclusions could be drawn. They also agreed that more stringent standards were necessary for ganzfeld experiments, and they jointly specified what those standards should be.[15] Post-Joint Communiqué

In 1983 Honorton had started a series of autoganzfeld experiments at his Psychophysical Research Laboratories. These studies were specifically designed to avoid the same potential problems as those identified in the 1986 joint communiqué issued by Hyman and Honorton. Ford Kross and Daryl Bem, both professional mentalist entertainers (magicians whose specialty is simulating psi effects)[16] examined Honorton's experimental arrangements, and pronounced them to provide excellent security against deception by subjects.[17] In addition to randomization consistent with the specifications of the communiqué, and computer control of the main elements of each test, these autoganzfeld experiments isolated the receiver in a sound-proof steel-walled and electromagnetically shielded room.[18] The PRL trials continued until September 1989. Of the 354 trials, 122 produced direct hits. This 34% hit rate was statistically similar to the 37% hit rate of the 1985 meta-analysis. These experiments were statistically significant with a z score of 3.89, which corresponds to a 1 in 45,000 probability of obtaining a hit rate of at least 34% by chance (mean chance expectation is 25%).[16][18] Concerning these results, Hyman wrote that the final verdict of whether psi can be demonstrated in the ganzfeld awaited the results of future experiments conducted by other independent investigators. To see if other, post-Joint Communiqué experiments had been as successful as the PRL trials, Julie Milton and Richard Wiseman carried out a meta-analysis of ganzfeld experiments carried out in other laboratories. They found no psi effect, with a database of 30 experiments and a non-significant Stouffer Z of 0.70.[19] This meta-analysis was criticised for including all ganzfeld experiments, regardless of the methods being used. Some parapsychologists considered that certain researchers had used protocols that were not part of the standard ganzfeld set up, such as targets consisting of music (traditional ganzfeld experiments use visual targets).[20] These experiments did not return significant results. A second meta-analysis was conducted by Daryl Bem, John Palmer, and Richard Broughton in which the experiments were sorted according to how closely they adhered to a pre-existing description of the ganzfeld procedure. Additionally, ten experiments that had been published in the time since Milton and Wiseman's deadline were introduced. Now the results were significant again with Stouffer Z of

26

Ganzfeld experiment 2.59.[21] In a 1995 paper discussing some of the challenges, deficiencies and achievements of modern laboratory parapsychology Ray Hyman said, Obviously, I do not believe that the contemporary findings of parapsychology, [...] justify concluding that anomalous mental phenomena have been proven. [...] [A]cceptable evidence for the presence of anomalous cognition must be based on a positive theory that tells us when psi should and should not be present. Until we have such a theory, the claim that anomalous cognition has been demonstrated is empty.[...] I want to state that I believe that the SAIC experiments as well as the contemporary ganzfeld experiments display methodological and statistical sophistication well above previous parapsychological research. Despite better controls and careful use of statistical inference, the investigators seem to be getting significant results that do not appear to derive from the more obvious flaws of previous research. [22] —Ray Hyman, The Journal of Parapsychology, December 1995 Contemporary research

The ganzfeld procedure has continued to be refined over the years. In its current incarnation, an automated computer system is used to select and display the targets ("digital autoganzfeld"). This overcomes many of the shortcomings of earlier experimental setups, such as randomization and experimenter blindness with respect to the targets [23] In 2010, Lance Storm, Patrizio Tressoldi, and Lorenzo Di Risio analyzed 29 ganzfeld studies from 1997 to 2008. Of the 1,498 trials, 483 produced hits, corresponding to a hit rate of 32.2%. This hit rate is statistically significant with p < .001. Participants selected for personality traits and personal characteristics thought to be psi-conducive were found to perform significantly better than unselected participants in the ganzfeld condition.[24]

Psi-conducive variables Parapsychologists have investigated certain personality traits and characteristics as potential psi-conducive variables, suggesting that most researchers share the view that these variables play an important role in ESP performance.[25] These factors are thought to be positively correlated with increased scores in ganzfeld experiments, as compared to unselected participants.[24] Traits and characteristics of subjects thought to increase the chance of obtaining a successful hit rate in a psi experiment include: • Positive belief in psi; ESP [26] • Prior psi experiences [25] • Practicing a mental discipline such as meditation [21] • Creativity [25] • Artistic ability [25] • Emotional closeness with the sender [27] While there are a number of reasons that researchers avoid special participants and sample only normal populations, these factors are important considerations in future replications of ganzfeld experiment, and may be useful in predicting the outcome of these studies. An increasing number of researchers have moved towards more process-oriented experiments, and personality factors give the potential for directional, falsifiable hypotheses, a part of the scientific process that critics have argued that parapsychology lacks.[24][28]

27

Ganzfeld experiment

Criticism There are several common criticisms of some or all of the ganzfeld experiments: Richard Wiseman and others argue that not all of the studies used soundproof rooms, so it is possible that when videos were playing, the experimenter (or even the receiver) could have heard it, and later given involuntary cues to the receiver during the selection process.[29] However, Dean Radin argues that ganzfeld studies that did use soundproof rooms had a number of "hits" similar to those that did not.[4][18] Randomization — When subjects are asked to choose from a variety of selections, there is an inherent bias to choose the first selection they are shown. If the order in which they are shown the selections is randomized each time, this bias will be averaged out. The randomization procedures used in the experiment have been criticized for not randomizing satisfactorily.[30] The psi assumption — The assumption that any statistical deviation from chance is evidence for telepathy is highly controversial. Strictly speaking, a deviation from chance is only evidence that either this was a rare, statistically unlikely occurrence that happened by chance, or something was causing a deviation from chance. Flaws in the experimental design are a common cause of this, and so the assumption that it must be telepathy is fallacious.[31] Isolation —

Controversy In 1979, Susan Blackmore visited the laboratories of Carl Sargent in Cambridge. She noticed a number of irregularities in the procedure and wrote about them for the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research . It now appeared that on one session — number 9 — the following events had taken place. 1. Sargent did the randomization when he should not have. 2. A 'B' went missing from the drawer during the session, instead of afterwards. 3. Sargent came into the judging and 'pushed' the subject towards 'B'. 4. An error of addition was made in favour of 'B' and 'B' was chosen. 5. 'B' was the target and the session a direct hit.[32] This article, along with further criticisms of Sargent's work from Adrian Parker and Nils Wiklund remained unpublished until 1987 but were well known in parapsychological circles. Sargent wrote a rebuttal to these criticisms (also not published until 1987) [33] in which he did not deny that what Blackmore saw occurred, but her conclusions based on those observations were wrong and prejudiced. His co-workers also responded, saying that any deviation from protocol was the result of “random errors” rather than any concerted attempt at fraud.[34] Carl Sargent stopped working in parapsychology after this and did not respond "in a timely fashion" when the Council of the Parapsychological Association asked for his data and so his membership in that organization was allowed to lapse.[35]

Notes [1] Radin 1997, p. 70 – 80 [2] "Parapsychological Association website, Glossary of Key Words Frequently Used in Parapsychology" (http:/ / parapsych.org/ glossary_a_d. html). . Retrieved 2006-03-01. [3] Metzger, W (1930). "Optische Untersuchungen am Ganzfeld: II. Zur Phanomenologie des homogenen Ganzfelds". Psychologische Forschung (13): 6 – 29. [4] Radin 1997 [5] "The Elusive Open Mind: Ten Years of Negative Research in Parapsychology" (http:/ / www.susanblackmore.co.uk/ Articles/ si87.html). The Skeptical Inquirer (11): 244 – 255. 1987. . [6] Daryl J. Bem (1994). "Response to Hyman". Psychological Bulletin 115 (1): 25 – 27. [7] Hyman, Ray (March 1996). "The evidence for psychic functioning: Claims vs. reality" (http:/ / www.csicop.org/ si/ show/ evidence_for_psychic_functioning_claims_vs._reality). The Skeptical Inquirer 20 (2): 24 – 26. . [8] "Parapsychological Association Glossary of Parapsychological terms" (http:/ / web.archive.org/ web/ 20060927060915/ http:/ / parapsych. org/ glossary_s_z.html#t). Archived from the original (http:/ / parapsych.org/ glossary_s_z.html#t) on September 27, 2006. . Retrieved

28

Ganzfeld experiment 2006-12-19. [9] Honorton & Harper (1974). "Psi-mediated imagery and ideation in an experimental procedure for regulating perceptual input". Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research (68): 156 – 168. [10] Palmer, J. (2003). "ESP in the Ganzfeld". Journal of Consciousness Studies 10 (6 – 7). [11] Charles Honorton (1985). "Meta-Analysis of Psi Ganzfeld Research: A Response to Hyman". Journal of Parapsychology (49). [12] Dean I. Radin, Simon & Schuster (2006). Entangled Minds: Extrasensory Experiences in a Quantum Reality. Paraview Pocket Books. ISBN 978-1-4165-1677-4. [13] Ray Hyman (1985). "The Ganzfeld Psi Experiments: A Critical Appraisal". Journal of Parapsychology (49). [14] Saunders (1985). "On Hyman's Factor Analysis". Journal of Parapsychology (49). [15] Hyman, Honorton (1986). "A Joint Communique". Journal of Parapsychology (50). [16] Honorton, Berger, Varvoglis, Quant, Derr, Schechter, Ferrari (1990). "Psi Communication in the Ganzfeld". Journal of Parapsychology (54). [17] 1979 survey quoted in Daryl J. Bem and Charles Honorton (1994). "Does Psi Exist? Replicable Evidence for an Anomalous Process of Information Transfer" (http:/ / www.dina.kvl.dk/ ~abraham/ psy1.html). Psychological Bulletin 115 (1): 4 – 18. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.115.1.4. . [18] Radin 1997, p. 77 – 89 [19] Milton, Wiseman; Wiseman, R (1999). "Does Psi Exist? Lack of Replication of an Anomalous Process of Information Transfer". Psychological Bulletin 125 (4): 387 – 391. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.125.4.387. PMID 10414223. [20] Schmeidler, Edge (December 1999). "Should Ganzfeld Research Continue To Be Crucial In The Search For A Replicable Psi Effect? Part ii". Journal of Parapsychology. [21] Bem DJ, Palmer J, Broughton RS (September 2001). "Updating the ganzfeld database: A victim of its own success?" (http:/ / instruct1.cit. cornell.edu/ courses/ psych113/ Bemetal.pdf) (PDF). Journal of Parapsychology 65 (3): 207 – 218. . [22] Ray Hyman (December 1995). "Evaluation of Program on Anomalous Mental Phenomena" (http:/ / www.mceagle.com/ remote-viewing/ refs/ science/ air/ hyman.html). The Journal of Parapsychology . . Retrieved 2007-01-05. [23] Goulding, A., Westerlund, J., Parker, A., & Wackermann, J. (2004). "The first Digital Autoganzfeld study using a real-time judging procedure". European Journal of Parapsychology 19: 66 – 97. [24] Storm, Tressoldi, Di Risio (July 2010). "Meta-Analysis of Free-Response Studies, 1992 – 2008: Assessing the Noise Reduction Model in Parapsychology" (http:/ / www.psy.unipd.it/ ~tressold/ cmssimple/ uploads/ includes/ MetaFreeResp010.pdf). Psychological Bulletin 138 (4): 471 – 85. doi:10.1037/a0019457. PMID 20565164. . Retrieved 2010-08-18. [25] Bem, Daryl J.; Honorton, Charles (1995). "Does psi exist? Replicable evidence for an anomalous process of information transfer" (http:/ / www.dbem.ws/ Does Psi Exist?.pdf) (PDF). Psychological Bulletin 115 (1): 4 – 18. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.115.1.4. . Retrieved 2007-07-31. [26] Lawrence,T.R. (1993). "Gathering in the sheep and goats: A meta-analysis of forced-choice sheep-goat ESP studies,1947 – 1993". In Proceedings of the 36th Annual Convention of the Parapsychological Association (Durham,NC: Parapsychological Association): 75 – 86. [27] Broughton, R.S. & Alexander, C.H. (1997). "AutoganzfeldII: An attempted replication of the PRL ganzfeld research". Journal of Parapsychology 61: 209 – 226. [28] Alcock, James E.; Jahn, Robert G. (2003). "Give the Null Hypothesis a Chance" (http:/ / www.imprint.co.uk/ pdf/ Alcock-editorial.pdf) (PDF). Journal of Consciousness Studies 10 (6 – 7): 29 – 50. . Retrieved 2007-07-30. [29] Wiseman, R., Smith, M,. Kornrot, D. (June 1996). "Exploring possible sender-to-experimenter acoustic leakage in the PRL autoganzfeld experiments" (http:/ / www.findarticles.com/ p/ articles/ mi_m2320/ is_n2_v60/ ai_18960809). Journal of Parapsychology. . [30] Hyman, Ray (1994). "Anomaly or Artifact? Comments on Bem and Honorton". Psychological Bulletin 115 (1): 19 – 24. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.115.1.19. [31] Carroll, Robert Todd (2005). "The Skeptic's Dictionary: Psi Assumption" (http:/ / skepdic.com/ psiassumption.html). . Retrieved 2006-06-23. [32] Blackmore (1987). "A Report of a Visit to Carl Sargent's Laboratory". Journal of the Society for Psychical Research 54: 186 – 198. [33] Sargent (1987). "Sceptical fairytales from Bristol". Journal of the Society for Psychical Research 54: 208 – 218. [34] Harley, Matthews (1987). "Cheating, psi, and the appliance of science: a reply to Blackmore". Journal of the Society for Psychical Research 54: 199 – 207. [35] John Beloff (1997). Parapsychology: A Concise History. Palgrave MacMillan. pp. 283 – 284.

29

Ganzfeld experiment

References • Dean I. Radin (1997). The Conscious Universe: The Scientific Truth of Psychic Phenomena . HarperOne. ISBN 0-06-251502-0. • Goulding A, "Mental health aspects of paranormal and psi related experiences, Doctoral Dissertation" (http:/ / hdl. handle.net/ 2077/ 190) • What's the story on "ganzfeld" experiments? (http:/ / www.straightdope.com/ mailbag/ mganzfeld.html), The Straight Dope, December 14, 2000. • Scott O. Lilienfeld (November/December 1999). "New Analyses Raise Doubts About Replicability of ESP Findings" (http:/ / www.csicop.org/ si/ 9911/ lilienfeld.html). Skeptical Inquirer . • Skeptic Report, A History of Psi in the Ganzfeld , Andrew Endersby (http:/ / www.skepticreport.com/ psychicpowers/ ganzfeld.htm) • Jessica Utts (1991). "Replication and meta-analysis in parapsychology" (http:/ / anson.ucdavis.edu/ ~utts/ 91a-menu.html). Statistical Science 6 (4): 363 – 378. doi:10.1214/ss/1177011577.

External links • Koestler Parapsychology Unit: Testing Psi (http:/ / www.koestler-parapsychology.psy.ed.ac.uk/ Psi.html) • The Skeptic's Dictionary : "ganzfeld" (http:/ / www.skepdic.com/ ganzfeld.html)

Genetic Studies of Genius The Genetic Studies of Genius, today known as the Terman Study of the Gifted,[1] is a still-running longitudinal study begun in 1921 to examine the development and characteristics of gifted children into adulthood. The study was started by Lewis Terman at Stanford University and is now the oldest and longest running longitudinal study in the world.[2][3] The results from the study have been published in five books,[4][5][6][7][8] a monograph,[9] and dozens of articles. A related retrospective study of eminent men in history by Catharine Cox, though not part of the longitudinal study, was published as part of the Genetic Studies of Genius.[10]

Origin Terman had previously performed studies in intelligence, including his doctorate dissertation.[11] In 1916, he adapted Alfred Binet's intelligence test for the United States and expanded its range. The result was the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales, which are still in use today (in an updated form). After his service in developing the Army Alpha during World War I, Terman returned to Stanford in order to start his study. Terman hired several assistants, including Florence Goodenough and Catharine Cox, to search the public schools of California for gifted children. Terman initially hoped to find the 1,000 most intelligent children,[12] but eventually found 1,444.[13] However, Terman gradually added subjects to the study through 1928 until there were 1,528 (856 males and 672 females).[14] Not all subjects were discovered with the Stanford-Binet. Some were selected for the study with the National Intelligence Tests and the Army Alpha. The study subjects were born between 1900 and 1925, all lived in California, were about 90% white, and the majority came from upper- or middle-class families.[15]

30


31

Early findings Terman's goal was to disprove the then-current belief that gifted children were sickly, socially inept, and not well-rounded. Therefore, the first volume of the study reported data on the children's family,[16] educational progress,[17] special abilities,[18] interests,[19] play,[20] and personality.[21] He also examined the children's racial and ethnic heritage.[22] Terman was a proponent of eugenics, although not as radical as many of his contemporary social Darwinists, and believed that intelligence testing could be used as a positive tool to shape society.[3] Based on data collected in 1921-22, Terman concluded that gifted children suffered no more health problems than normal for their age, save a little more myopia than average. He also found that the children were usually social, were well-adjusted, did better in school, and were even taller than average. [23] A follow-up performed in 1923-1924 found that the children had maintained their high IQs and were still an overall blessed group.

Follow-ups Terman planned later follow-ups, and in his lifetime data would be collected in 1928, 1936, 1940, 1945, 1950, and 1955. At his death, the study was directed by Melita Oden, who collected additional data in 1960. Robert Richardson Sears later took charge of the study and collected data in 1972, 1977, 1982, and 1986.[24] Moreover, many study participants corresponded with Terman or visited Stanford University in order to keep him updated on their lives.[25] According to those who have access to the study archives, the files also include news articles, letters, and other documents related to the study participants.[26] The later follow-ups asked questions about war service, college education, marital status and happiness, work, retirement, raising children, and other lifetime events and concerns.[27] Some of Terman's subjects reached great eminence in their fields. Among the most notable were head I Love Lucy writer Jess Oppenheimer,[28] American Psychological Association president and esteemed educational psychologist Lee Cronbach,[29] Ancel Keys,[30] and even Robert Sears himself.[28] Over fifty men became college and university faculty members.[31] However, the majority of study participants' lives were more mundane. By the 4th volume of Genetic Studies of Genius, Terman had noted that as adults, his subjects pursued common occupations "as humble as those of policeman, seaman, typist and filing clerk"[32] and concluded: [33] At any rate, we have seen that intellect and achievement are far from perfectly correlated

“

”

Criticism The study has been criticized for not having a generalizable sample.[34] Moreover, Terman meddled in his subject's lives, giving them letters of recommendation for jobs and college and pulling strings at Stanford to help them get admitted.[3][26] This makes any life outcomes of the sample tainted and ungeneralizable. In his book Fads and foibles in modern sociology and related sciences (p. 70-76), sociologist Pitirim Sorokin criticized the research, showing that Terman's selected group of children with high IQs did about as well as a random group of children selected from similar family backgrounds would have done.[35] The study also has all the weaknesses of any longitudinal study: it is possible that the characteristics and behaviors of the sample are a partial result of the era they lived in. Indeed, many members of the sample couldn't attend college, due to the Great Depression and World War II. [36] Almost half of women in the sample were homemakers for most of their lives.[37] Despite these shortcomings, the data from the sample is often used for studies because there is no other group of people who have been followed for so long.


Today Of course, as time has passed, the sample has dwindled. As of 2003, there were over 200 members of the sample still alive.[38] The study is to continue until the final member of the sample either withdraws or dies.[3]

References [1] Holahan, C. K., & Sears, R. R. (1995) The Gifted Group in Later Maturity. Stanford University Press: Stanford, CA. [2] Holahan, p. xi. [3] Leslie, Mitchell (2000). The vexing legacy of Lewis Terman (http:/ / www.webcitation.org/ 5z8BMMDUy). Stanford Magazine. Archived from the original (http:/ / www.stanfordalumni.org/ news/ magazine/ 2000/ julaug/ articles/ terman.html) on 2011-06-01. . [4] Terman, L. M. (1926). Mental and physical traits of a thousand gifted children. Vol. 1. Genetic studies of genius (2nd ed.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. [5] Burks, B. S., Jensen, D. W., & Terman, L. M. (1930). The promise of youth: Follow-up studies of a thousand gifted children. Vol. 3. Genetic studies of genius. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. [6] Terman, L. M., & Oden, M. H. (1947). The gifted child grows up. Vol 4. Genetic studies of genius. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. [7] Terman, L. M., & Oden, M. H. (1959). The gifted group at mid-life. Vol 5. Genetic studies of genius. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. [8] Holahan & Sears, 1995 [9] Oden, M. L. (1968). "The fulfillment of promise: 40-year follow-up of the Terman gifted group". Genetic Psychology Monographs 77: 3 – 93. [10] Cox, C. M. (1926). The early mental traits of 300 geniuses. Vol 2. Genetic studies of genius. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. [11] Terman, L. M. (1906). "Genius and stupidity: A study of some of the intellectual processes of seven "bright" and seven "stupid" boys". Pedagogical Seminary 13: 307 – 373. [12] Terman, 1930, p. 19. [13] Terman, 1930, p. 39 [14] Holahan & Sears, 1995, p. 12 [15] Holahan & Sears, 1995, p. 11-14 [16] Terman, 1926, p. 135-252 [17] Terman, 1926, p. 253-306 [18] Terman, 1926, p. 307-362 [19] Terman, 1926, p. 363-384, 441-484 [20] Terman, 1926, p. 385-440 [21] Terman, 1926, p. 485-556 [22] Terman, 1926, p. 55-112 [23] Terman, 1926 [24] Holahan & Sears, 1995, p. 18-24 [25] Holahan & Sears, 1995, p. 275-276 [26] Shurkin, Joel N. (1992). Terman's kids: The groundbreaking study of how the gifted grow up. Little, Brown and Company. ISBN 978-0-316-78890-8. Lay summary (http:/ / articles.latimes.com/ print/ 1992-05-31/ books/ bk-1247_1_lewis-terman). [27] Holahan& Sears, 1995 [28] Leslie, 2000 [29] Shavelson, R. J.; Gleser, G. (2002). "Lee J. Cronbach (1916-2001) Obituary". American Psychologist 57: 360 – 361. doi:10.1037/0003-006X.57.5.360. [30] Shurkin, 1992 [31] Oden, 1968, p. 17. [32] Jenkins-Friedman, Reva (1982). "Myth: Cosmetic use of multiple selection criteria!" (http:/ / gcq.sagepub.com/ content/ 26/ 1/ 24.extract). Gifted Child Quarterly 26 (1): 24 – 26. doi:10.1177/001698628202600108. . Retrieved 2011-06-02. [33] Terman, Lewis Madison; M. H. Oden (1947). Genetic Studies of Genius ...: The gifted child grows up; twenty-five years' follow-up of a superior group (http:/ / books.google.com/ books?id=TLJ9AAAAMAAJ&q="we+have+seen+that+intellect+and+achievement") (4 ed.). Stanford University Press. p. 352. . Retrieved 2011-06-02. [34] Holahan & Sears, p. 11 [35] Gladwell, Malcolm (2008). Outliers (http:/ / www.goodreads.com/ review/ show/ 104760101). New York. pp. 90. ISBN 978-0-316-03669-6. . [36] Holahan & Sears, 1995, p. 45 [37] Holahan & Sears, 1995, p. 87 [38] Christmann, E. P., & Badgett, J. L. (2008). Interpreting assessment data. NTSA Press.

32


Hofling hospital experiment In 1966, the psychiatrist Charles K. Hofling conducted a field experiment on obedience in the nurse-physician relationship.[1] In the natural hospital setting, nurses were ordered by unknown doctors to administer what could have been a dangerous dose of a (fictional) drug to their patients. In spite of official guidelines forbidding administration in such circumstances, Hofling found that 21 out of the 22 nurses would have given the patient an overdose of medicine.

Procedure A doctor unknown to a nurse would call her by telephone with orders to administer 20 mg of a fictional drug named "Astroten" to a patient and that he/she will sign for the medication later. The bottle had been surreptitiously placed in the drug cabinet, but the "drug" was not on the approved list. It was clearly labelled that 10 mg was the maximum daily dose. The experimental protocol was explained to a group of nurses and nursing students, who were asked to predict how many nurses would give the drug to the patient. Of the twelve nurses, ten said they would not do it. All twenty-one nursing students said they would refuse to administer the drug. Hofling then selected 22 nurses at a hospital in the United States for the actual experiment. They were each called by an experimenter with the alias of Dr. Smith who said that he would be around to write up the paperwork as soon as he got to the hospital. The nurses were stopped at the door to the patient room before they could administer the "drug". There were several reasons that the nurses should have refused to obey the authority. 1.) The dosage they were instructed to administer was twice that of the recommended safe daily dosage. 2.) Hospital protocol stated that nurses should only take instructions from doctors known to them, therefore they should definitely not have followed instructions given by an unknown doctor over the phone. 3.) The drug was not on their list of drugs to be administered that day and the required paperwork to be filled before drug administration was not completed.

Findings Hofling found that 21 out of the 22 nurses would have given the patient an overdose of medicine. None of the investigators, and only one experienced nurse who examined the protocol in advance, correctly guessed the experimental results. He also found that all 22 nurses whom he had given the questionnaire to had said they would not obey the orders of the doctor, and that 10 out of the 22 nurses had done this before, with a different drug.

Conclusions The nurses were thought to have allowed themselves to be deceived because of their high opinions of the standards of the medical profession. The study revealed the danger to patients that existed because the nurses' view of professional standards induced them to suppress their good judgement.

33


Books • • • • • •

(1960). Charles K. Hofling, Madeleine M. Leininger, Elizabeth Bregg. J. B. Lippencott, 2nd ed. 1967: ISBN 0-397-54062-0 Textbook of Psychiatry for Medical Practice edited by C. K. Hofling. J. B. Lippencott, 3rd ed. 1975: ISBN 0-397-52070-0 Aging: The Process and the People (1978). Usdin, Gene & Charles K. Hofling, editors. American College of Psychiatrists. New York: Brunner/Mazel Publishers The Family: Evaluation and Treatment (1980). ed. C. K. Hofling and J. M. Lewis, New York: Brunner/Mazel Publishers Law and Ethics in the Practice of Psychiatry (1981). New York: Brunner/Mazel Publishers, ISBN 0-87630-250-9 Custer and the Little Big Horn: A Psychobiographical Inquiry (1985). Wayne State University Press, ISBN 0-8143-1814-2 Basic Psychiatric Concepts in Nursing

References [1] Hofling CK et al. (1966) "An Experimental Study of Nurse-Physician Relationships". Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 143:171-180.

External links • Obedience studies (http:/ / upalumni.org/ medschool/ appendices/ appendix-39f.html)

Implicit Association Test The Implicit Association Test (IAT) is a measure within social psychology designed to detect the strength of a person's automatic association between mental representations of objects (concepts) in memory. The IAT was introduced in the scientific literature in 1998 by Anthony Greenwald, Debbie McGee, and Jordan Schwartz.[1] The IAT is now widely used in social psychology research and is used to some extent in clinical, cognitive, and developmental psychology research. Although some controversy still exists regarding the IAT and what it measures, much research into its validity and psychometric properties has been conducted since its introduction into the literature.

History Implicit cognition and measurement

In 1995, social psychology researchers Anthony Greenwald and Mahzarin Banaji proposed the extension of ideas already existing in 1995[2] They asserted that the idea of implicit and explicit memory can apply to social constructs as well. If memories that are not accessible to awareness can influence our actions, associations can also influence our attitudes and behavior. Thus, measures that tap into individual differences in associations of concepts should be developed. This would allow researchers to understand attitudes that cannot be measured through explicit self-report methods due to lack of awareness or social desirability bias.[3]

34


35

Application and use A computer-based measure, the IAT requires that users rapidly categorize two target concepts with an attribute (e.g. the concepts "male" and "female" with the attribute "logical"), such that easier pairings (faster responses) are interpreted as more strongly associated in memory than more difficult pairings (slower responses).[1] The IAT is thought to measure implicit attitudes: "introspectively unidentified (or inaccurately identified) traces of past experience that mediate favorable or unfavorable feeling, thought, or action toward social objects."[4] In research, the IAT has been used to develop theories to understand implicit cognition (i.e. cognitive processes of which a person has no conscious awareness). These processes may include memory, perception, attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Because the IAT requires that users make a series of rapid judgments, researchers believe that IAT scores may reflect attitudes which people are unwilling to reveal publicly.[1] The IAT may allow researchers to get around the difficult problem of social desirability bias and for that reason it has been used extensively to assess people's attitudes towards commonly stigmatized groups.[5] IAT Procedure Task 1 (practice):

Black

White

Aaliyah Press E to classify as Black or I to classify as White Task 2 (practice):

Pleasant

Unpleasant

Suffering Press E to classify as Pleasant or I to classify as Unpleasant Tasks 3 and 4 (data collection):

Black/ Pleasant

White/ Unpleasant

Happiness Press E to classify as Black or Pleasant or I to classify as White or Unpleasant Task 5 (practice):


36 White

Black

Eminem Press E to classify as White or I to classify as Black Tasks 6 and 7 (data collection):

White/

Black/

Pleasant

Unpleasant

Shanice Press E to classify as White or Pleasant or I to classify as Black or Unpleasant

Example of a typical IAT procedure A typical IAT procedure involves a series of seven tasks. [6] In the first task, an individual is asked to categorize stimuli into two categories. For example, a person might be presented with a computer screen on which the word "Black" appears in the top left-hand corner and the word "White" appears in the top right-hand corner. In the middle of the screen a word, such as a first name, that is typically associated with either the categories of "Black" or "White." For each word that appears in the middle of the screen, the person is asked to sort the word into the appropriate category by pressing the appropriate left-hand or right-hand key. On the second task, the person would complete a similar sorting procedure with an attribute of some kind. For example, the word "Pleasant" might now appear in the top left-hand corner of the screen and the word "Unpleasant" in the top right-hand corner. In the middle of the screen would appear a word that is either pleasant or unpleasant. Once again, the person would be asked to sort each word as being either pleasant or unpleasant by pressing the appropriate key. On the third task, individuals are asked to complete a combined task that includes both the categories and attributes from the first two tasks. In this example, the words "Black/Pleasant" might appear in the top left-hand corner while the words "White/Unpleasant" would appear in the top right-hand corner. Individuals would then see a series of stimuli in the center of the screen consisting of either a name or word. They would be asked to press the left-hand key if the name or word belongs to the "Black/Pleasant" category or the right-hand key if it belongs to the "White/Unpleasant" category. The fourth task is a repeat of the third task but with more repetitions of the names, words, or images. The fifth task is a repeat of the first task with the exception that the position of the two target words would be reversed. For example, "Black" would now appear in the top right-hand corner of the screen and "White" in the top left-hand corner. The sixth task would be a repeat of the third, except that the objects and subjects of study would be in opposite pairings from previous trials. In this case, "Black/Unpleasant" would now appear in the top right-hand corner and "White/Pleasant" would now appear in the top left-hand corner. The seventh task is a repeat of the sixth task but with more repetitions of the names, words, or images. If the categories under study (e.g. Black or White) are differently associated with the presented attributes (e.g. Pleasant/Unpleasant), you would expect that the pairing that a participant associates with or believes would be considerably easier for the participant.[1] In this example a participant may perform better when White and Pleasant are paired together than when Black and Pleasant are paired. Variations of the IAT include the Go/No-go Association Test (GNAT),[7] the Brief-IAT [8] and the Single-Category IAT.[9] An idiographic approach using the IAT and the SC-IAT for measuring implicit anxiety showed that personalized stimulus selection did not affect the outcome, reliabilities and correlations to outside criteria.[10]


Types of IATs Valence IAT

Valence IATs measure associations between concepts and positive or negative valence. They are generally interpreted as a preference for one category over another. For example, the Race IAT shows that most White individuals have an implicit preference for Whites over Blacks.[11] On the other hand, only half of Black individuals prefer Blacks over Whites (cf. the earlier "doll experiment" developed by psychologists Kenneth and Mamie Clark during the early civil rights era). Similarly, the Age IAT generally shows that most individuals have an implicit preference for young over old, regardless of the age of the person taking the IAT. Some other valence IATs include the Weight IAT, the Sexuality IAT, the Arab-Muslim IAT, and the Skin-tone IAT. Stereotype IAT

Stereotype IATs measure associations between concepts that often reflect the strength to which a person holds a particular societal stereotype. For example, the Gender-Science IAT reveals that most people associate women more strongly with liberal arts and men more strongly with science.[11] Similarly, the Gender-Career IAT indicates that most people associate women more strongly with family and men more strongly with careers. The Asian IAT shows that many people more strongly associate Asian Americans with foreign landmarks and European Americans more strongly with American landmarks. Some other stereotype IATs include the Weapons IAT and the Native IAT. Self-esteem IAT

The self-esteem IAT measures implicit self-esteem by pairing "self" and "other" words with words of positive and negative valence.[12] Those who find it easier to pair "self" with positive words than negative words are purported to have higher implicit self-esteem. Generally, measures of implicit self-esteem, including the IAT, are not strongly related to one another and are not strongly related to explicit measures of self-esteem.[13] Brief IAT

The Brief IAT (BIAT) uses a similar procedure to the standard IAT but requires fewer classifications.[8] It involves four tasks rather than seven and only uses combined tasks (corresponding most closely to tasks 3, 4, 6, and 7 on the standard IAT). Additionally, it requires specification of a focal category in each task. For example, rather than focusing on "White" and "Black" as in the standard Race IAT, it asks participants to focus on one of these concepts in the first task and the other in the second task. Child IAT

The Child IAT (Ch-IAT)[14] allows for children as young as four years of age to take the IAT. Rather than words and pictures, the Ch-IAT uses sound and pictures. For example, positive and negative valence are indicated with smiling and frowning faces. Positive and negative words to be classified are voiced out loud to children. Studies using the Ch-IAT have revealed that six-year old White children, ten-year old White children, and White adults have comparable implicit attitudes on the Race IAT.[14]

Theoretical Interpretation The IAT provides a “window” into a level of mental operation that operates in unthinking (unconscious, automatic, implicit, impulsive, intuitive, etc.) fashion because associations operating without active thought (automatically) can help performance in one of the IAT’s two “combined” tasks, while interfering with the other. Respondents to the IAT experience a higher (conscious, controlled, explicit, reflective, analytic, rational, etc.) level of mental operation, when they try to overcome the effects of the automatic associations. The IAT succeeds as a measure because the

37

Implicit Association Test higher level fails to completely overcome the lower level. [15]

IAT and Balanced Identity Theory and Design ’

Heider s Balance Theory

In 1958, Fritz Heider proposed the balance theory, which stated that a system of liking and disliking relationships is balanced if the product of the valence of all relationships within the system is positive. In the theory, there are concepts and associations. Concepts are persons, groups, or attributes; and among attribute concepts, there are positive and negative valences. Associations are relations between pairs of concepts, and the strength of association is the potential for one concept to activate another, either by external stimuli or by excitation through their associations with other, already active, concepts. The theory followed the assumption of associative social knowledge: an important portion of social knowledge could be represented as a network of variable-strength associations among person concepts (including self and groups) and attributes (including valence). [16] The Balanced-Congruity Principle

When two unlinked or weakly linked nodes are linked to the same third node, the association between these two should strengthen. This is the principle of balance-congruity. The nodes in the principle of balance-congruity are equivalent to the concepts in Heider’s balance theory, and the three involved nodes/concepts make up a system. Since every relationship within the system here is positively associated, this, according to a derivation of Heider’s theory, also represents a balanced system where the product of the direction of all associations within the system is positive. [16] Balanced Identity Research Design

In 2002, Dr. Anthony Greenwald and his colleagues introduced the balance identity design as a method to test correlational predictions of Heider’s balance theory. The balanced identity design incorporated Heider’s theory, the balanced-congruity principle, and the assumption of centrality of self. The assumption of centrality of self is that in an associative knowledge structure, the self ’s centrality can be represented by its being associated with many other concepts that are themselves highly connected in the structure. The concepts in a typical balanced identity design are the self, a social group/object, and either a valence attribute or nonvalence attribute. There are thus five important associations possible in a typical balanced identity design that connect these three categories of concepts. An attitude is the association of a social group/object with a valence attribute; a stereotype is the association of a social group with one or more nonvalence attribute(s); self-esteem is the association of the self with a valence attribute; a self-concept is the association of the self with one or more nonvalence attribute(s); and the last important association is between the self and a social group/object, which is called an identity. However, in a typical balanced identity design, only three of the five possible associations come into play, and they are usually either identity, self-concept, and stereotype or identity, self-esteem, and attitude. Researchers using a balance identity design are the ones to determine the set of concepts they want to investigate, and each one of the associations within the system that the researchers created will then be tested and analyzed statistically with both implicit and explicit measures. [16] Typical Results of Balanced Identity Research Design with Implicit Measures

A typical result of a balanced identity design usually shows that a group’s identity is balanced, at least with implicit measures. According to a derivation of Heider’s balance theory, since there are three concepts in a typical balanced identity design, the identity is balanced either when all three relations are positive or when one positive and two negative relations are present in the triad system. The triad system of “me —male —being good at math” will be used as an example here, and its typical result acquired from the Implicit Association Test (IAT) will be shown below. For male subjects, the three associations within the triad are usually all positive. For female subjects, the “me —male”

38

Implicit Association Test association is usually negative, the “male —being good at math” association is usually positive, and the “me —being good at math” association is usually negative. As it’s shown, for both the male and female subjects, their group identities are balanced. [16] Comparison to Findings with Explicit Reports

Self-reporting is also usually used in a balanced identity design. Although self-reports don’t necessarily reflect the predicted consistency patterns from Heider’s theory, it is often used to compare with the results from the Implicit Association Test (IAT). Any discrepancies between the self-reports and the IAT results on the same association in a balanced identity design can be an indication of an experience of conflict. The above triad system of “me —male —being good at math” is a good example. For female subjects, whereas the Implicit Association Test (IAT) typically shows a stronger positive association of “male” and “being good at math,” the explicit self-reporting usually shows a weaker positive association or even a weaker negative association of “male” and “being good at math.” Also, whereas the IAT typically shows a stronger negative association of “me” and “being good at math” for the same female subjects, the self-reporting usually shows a weaker negative or even a weaker positive association of “me” and “being good at math.” In this case, the female group is believed to be experiencing a conflict. The common explanation for a group experiencing a conflict is that in an effort to change a stereotypical view that has been around in the society for a really long time, even though people who belong to a certain social group believe that they are able to reject this stereotype (shown in explicit measures), the exact stereotypical thought is still going to remain in the back of their heads (shown in implicit measures), maybe not as much as those who actually believe in that thought. So maybe with time, as a stereotype gradually fades baway, that conflict will fade away as well. [16] Limitations

The Implicit Association Test (IAT) has been widely used as a measure for the balanced identity design because data obtained with this method revealed that predicted consistency patterns from Heider’s theory were strongly apparent in the data for implicit measures by IAT but not in those for parallel explicit measures by self-report. The general explanation for why explicit measures by self-report did not reflect the predicted consistency patterns from Heider’s theory was that self-report measures can go astray when respondents are either unwilling or unable to report accurately, and these problems could be more than enough to obscure the operation of consistency processes. There are, however, still limitations to the theory. For example, the balanced identity IAT measures only give group results rather than individual results, so it has its limitations when an analysis requires for individual pinpoint data to analyze, for instance, how balanced one’s identity is relative to others’. It is hopeful, however, that researchers working with the Implicit Association Test (IAT) are trying hard to overcome challenges such as the one described above. [16]

Criticism and controversy The IAT has engendered some controversy in both the scientific literature[17] and in the public sphere (e.g., in the Wall Street Journal.)[18] For example, it has been interpreted as assessing familiarity,[19] perceptual salience asymmetries,[20] or mere cultural knowledge irrespective of personal endorsement of that knowledge.[21] A more recent critique argued that there is a lack of empirical research justifying the diagnostic statements that are given to the lay public.[22] For instance, feedback may report that someone has a [slight/moderate/strong] automatic preference for [European Americans/African Americans]. Proponents of the IAT have responded to these charges,[23] but the debate continues. According to The New York Times, "there isn’t even that much consistency in the same person’s scores if the test is taken again".[24] In addition, researchers have recently claimed that results of the IAT might be biased by the participant's lacking cognitive capability to adjust to switching categories, thus biasing results in favor of the first category pairing (e.g., pairing "Asian" with positive stimuli first, instead of pairing "Asian" with negative stimuli first).[25]

39

Implicit Association Test Some of these issues have been settled in the research literature, but others continue to inspire debate among researchers and lay people alike. Validity research

Since its introduction into the scientific literature in 1998, a great deal of research has been conducted in order to examine the psychometric properties of the IAT as well as to address other criticisms on validity and reliability.[23] Construct validity

The IAT is purported to measure relative strength of associations. However, some researchers have asserted that the IAT may instead be measuring constructs such as salience of attributes[20] or cultural knowledge.[21] Predictive validity

A recent meta-analysis[26] has concluded that the IAT has predictive validity independent of the predictive validity of explicit measures. Further, the IAT tends to be a better predictor of behavior in socially sensitive contexts (e.g., discrimination and suicidal behaviour)[27] than traditional 'explicit' self-report methods,[28] whereas explicit measures tend to be better predictors of behavior in less socially sensitive contexts (e.g., political preferences). Specifically, the IAT has been shown to predict voting behavior (e.g., ultimate candidate choice of undecided voters),[29] mental health (e.g., a self-injury IAT differentiated between adolescents who injured themselves and those who did not),[30] medical outcomes (e.g., medical recommendations by physicians),[31] employment outcomes (e.g., interviewing Muslim-Arab versus Swedish job applicants),[32] and education outcomes (e.g., gender-science stereotypes predict gender disparities in nations' science and math test scores).[33] In applied settings, the IAT has been used in marketing and industrial psychology. For example, in determining the predictors of risk-taking behaviour in general aviation, attitudes towards risky flight behaviour as measured through an IAT have shown to be a more accurate forecast of risky flight behaviour than traditional explicit attitude or personality scales.[34] The IAT has also been used in clinical psychology research to test the hypothesis that implicit associations may be a causal factor in the development of anxiety disorders.[35] Salience asymmetry

Researchers have argued that the IAT may measure salience of concepts rather than associations. Whereas IAT proponents claim that faster response times when pairing concepts indicate stronger associations, critics claim that faster response times indicate that concepts are similar in salience (and slower response times indicate that concepts differ in salience).[20] There is some support for this claim. For example, in an old-young IAT, old faces would be more salient than young faces. As a result, researchers created an old-young IAT that involved pairing young and old faces with neutral words (non-salient attribute) and non-words (salient attribute). Response times were faster when old faces (salient) were paired with non-words (salient) than when old faces (salient) were paired with neutral words (non-salient), supporting the assertion that faster response time can be facilitated by matching salience. Although proponents of the IAT acknowledge that it may be influenced by salience asymmetry, they argue that this does not preclude interpreting the IAT as a measure of associations.[36]

40

Implicit Association Test Culture versus person

Another criticism of the IAT is that it may measure associations that are picked up from cultural knowledge rather than associations actually residing within a person.[21] The counter-argument is that such associations may indeed arise from the culture, but they can nonetheless influence behavior.[37] To address the possibility that the IAT picks up on cultural knowledge rather than beliefs that are present in a person, some critics of the standard IAT created the personalized IAT.[38] The primary difference between a standard valence IAT and the personalized IAT is that rather than using pleasant and unpleasant words as category labels, it uses "I like" and "I don't like" as category labels. Additionally, the Personalized IAT does not provide error feedback for an incorrect response as in the standard IAT. This form of the IAT is more strongly related to explicit self-report measures of bias. Proponents of the standard IAT argue that the Personalized IAT increases the likelihood that those taking it will evaluate the concept rather than classify it.[39] This would increase its relationship with explicit measures without necessarily removing the effect of cultural knowledge. In fact, some researchers have examined the relationship between perceptions of general American attitudes and Personalized IAT scores and have concluded that the relationship between the IAT and cultural knowledge is not decreased by personalizing it. However, it is important to note that there was no relationship between cultural knowledge and standard IAT scores either.(Ref.?) Internal validity Fakeability

The IAT has also demonstrated a reasonable amount of resistance to social desirability bias. Individuals asked to fake their responses on the IAT have demonstrated difficulty in doing so. For example, participants who were asked to present a positive impression of themselves were able to do so on a self-report measure of anxiety but not an IAT measuring anxiety.[40] Nonetheless, faking is possible,[41] and recent research indicates that the most effective method of faking the IAT is to intentionally slow down responses for pairings that should be relatively easy. Most subjects, however, do not discover this strategy on their own, so faking is relatively rare. An algorithm developed to estimate IAT faking can identify those who are faking with approximately 75% accuracy. There is a recent study showing that participants can even speed up their responses during the relatively difficult response pairings in an autobiographical implicit association test that aims to test the veracity of autobiographical statement. Specifically, participants who were instructed to speed up their responses to fake the test were able to do so. The effect was larger when participants were trained in speeding up. Most importantly, guilty participants who speed up their responses during the difficult response pairing successfully beat the test to obtain an innoncet results. In other words, participants can reverse their test outcome without being detected. Clearly, this poses new chanllenges to the IATs.[42] Familiarity

A common criticism of the IAT is that it may be difficult to associate positive attributes with less familiar concepts.[19] For example, if a person has had less contact with members of a particular ethnic group, he or she may have a more difficult time associating members of that ethnic group with positive words simply because of this lack of familiarity. There is some evidence against the familiarity based on studies that have ensured equal familiarity with the African American and White names as well as the faces appearing on the Race IAT.[43]

41

Implicit Association Test Order

As the IAT relies on a comparison of response times in different tasks pairing concepts and attributes, researchers and others taking the IAT have speculated that the pairing on the first combined task may affect performance on the next combined task. For example, a participant who begins a gender stereotype IAT by pairing female names with family words may subsequently find the task of pairing female names with career words more difficult. Research has indeed shown a small effect of order. As a result, it is recommended to increase the number of classifications required in the fifth IAT task.[3] This gives participants more practice before doing the second pairing, thus reducing the order effect. When studying groups of people, this effect could be countered by giving pairings first to different participants (e.g. half of participants pair female names and family words first, the other half pair female names with career words first). Cognitive fluency and age

The IAT is influenced by individual differences in average IAT response times such that those with slower overall response times tend to have more extreme IAT scores.[44] Older subjects also tend to have more extreme IAT scores, and this may be related to cognitive fluency, or slower overall response times. An improved scoring algorithm for the IAT, which reduces the effect of cognitive fluency on the IAT, has been introduced.[45] A summary of the scoring algorithm can be found on Dr. Anthony Greenwald's webpage.[46] Experience with the IAT

Repeated administrations of the IAT tend to decrease the magnitude of the effect for a particular person. This issue is somewhat ameliorated with the improved scoring algorithm.[45] An additional safeguard to control for IAT experience is to include a different type of IAT as a comparison. This allows researchers to evaluate the degree of magnitude decrease when administering subsequent IATs. Reliability

The IAT demonstrates satisfactory internal consistency and test-retest reliability.[3] However, IAT scores do seem to vary between multiple administrations, indicating that it may measure a combination of trait (stable characteristics of people) and state (subject to variation based on situation-specific circumstances) characteristics. One example of the latter case is that scores on the Race IAT are known to be less biased against African Americans when those taking it imagine positive Black exemplars beforehand (e.g., Martin Luther King).[47]

In popular culture After establishing the IAT in the scientific literature, Dr. Anthony Greenwald, along with Mahzarin Banaji (Professor of Psychology at Harvard University) and Brian Nosek (Associate Professor of Psychology at the University of Virginia), co-founded Project Implicit,[48] a virtual laboratory and educational outreach organization that facilitates research on implicit cognition. The IAT has been profiled in major media outlets (e.g. in the Washington Post )[49] and in the popular book Blink, where it was suggested that one could score better on the implicit racism test by visualizing respected black leaders such as Nelson Mandela. The IAT was also discussed in a 2006 episode of the Oprah Winfrey Show[50].

42


References [1] Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. K. L. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The Implicit Association Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1464-1480. [2] Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102, 4-27. [3] Nosek, B. A., Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (2005). Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: II. Method variables and construct validity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 166 – 180. [4] Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102, 8. [5] Devine, P.G. (2001), "Implicit Prejudice and Stereotyping: How Automatic Are They?", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 81 (5): 757 – 759 [6] Nosek, B. A., Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (2007). The Implicit Association Test at age 7: A methodological and conceptual review (pp. 265 – 292). In J. A. Bargh (Ed.), Automatic processes in social thinking and behavior. Psychology Press. [7] Nosek, Brian A.; Banaji, Mahzarin R. (2001). "THE GO/NO-GO ASSOCIATION TASK" (http:/ / projectimplicit.net/ nosek/ papers/ gnat. pdf). Social Cognition 19 (6): 625 – 664. doi:10.1521/soco.19.6.625.20886. . [8] Sriram, N., & Greenwald, A. G. (2009). The Brief Implicit Association Test. Experimental Psychology, 56, 283 – 294. [9] Karpinski, Andrew; Steinman, Ross B. (2006). "The single category Implicit Association Test as a measure of implicit social cognition". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 91 (1): 16 – 32. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.91.1.16. PMID 16834477. [10] Stieger, Stefan; Göritz, Anja S.; Burger, Christoph (2010). "Personalizing the IAT and the SC-IAT: Impact of idiographic stimulus selection in the measurement of implicit anxiety" (http:/ / linkinghub.elsevier.com/ retrieve/ pii/ S0191886910000954). Personality and Individual Differences 48 (8): 940 – 944. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.02.027. . [11] Nosek, B. A., Banaji, M. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (2002). Harvesting implicit group attitudes and beliefs from a demonstration website. Group Dynamics, 6(1), 101-115. [12] Greenwald, A. G., & Farnham, S. D. (2000). Using the Implicit Association Test to measure self-esteem and self-concept. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 1022-1038. [13] Bosson, J. K., Swann, W. B. Jr., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2000). Stalking the perfect measure of implicit self-esteem: The blind men and the elephant revisited? Journal of Personality & Social Psychology. 79, 631-643. [14] Baron, A. S., & Banaji, M. R. (2006). The development of implicit attitudes: Evidence of race evaluations from ages 6, 10 & adulthood. Psychological Science, 17, 53-58. [15] Televised Lecture "The Psychology of Blink: Understanding How Our Minds Work Unconsciously - Part 1 of 2" (recorded March 5, 2008) [16] Greenwald, A. G., Banaji, M. R., Rudman, L. A., Farnham, S. D., Nosek, B. A., & Mellott, D. S. (2002). A unified theory of implicit attitudes, stereotypes, self-esteem, and self-concept. Psychological Review, 109, 3-25. [17] Azar, B. (2008). IAT: Fad or fabulous? Monitor on Psychology, 39, 44. [18] Wax, Amy; Tetlock, Philip (December 1, 2005). "We're all racists at heart" (http:/ / www.adversity.net/ FRAMES/ Editorials/ 58_We_Are_All-Racists.htm). Wall Street Journal. . Retrieved 2011-06-09. [19] Ottaway, S. A., Hayden, D. C., & Oakes, M. A. (2001). Implicit attitudes and racism: Effects of word familiarity and frequency on the implicit association test. Social Cognition, 19, 97-144. [20] Rothermund, K., & Wentura, D. (2004). Underlying processes in the Implicit Association Test(IAT): Dissociating salience from associations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 139-165. [21] Arkes, H. R., & Tetlock, P. E. (2004). Attributions of Implicit Prejudice, or "Would Jesse Jackson 'Fail' the Implicit Association Test?" Psychological Inquiry. 15, 257-278. [22] Blanton, Hart; Jaccard, James (January 2006). "Arbitrary Metrics in Psychology" (http:/ / psychology.tamu.edu/ Faculty/ blanton/ bj.2006. arbitrary.pdf) (PDF). American Psychologist (American Psychological Association) 61 (1): 27 – 41. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.61.1.27. PMID 16435974. . [23] Greenwald, Anthony. "Dr. Anthony Greenwald / IAT Materials" (http:/ / faculty.washington.edu/ agg/ iat_validity.htm#famil). . Retrieved 2008-10-11. [24] Tierney, John (November 17, 2008). "In Bias Test, Shades of Gray" (http:/ / www.nytimes.com/ 2008/ 11/ 18/ science/ 18tier.html). The New York Times. . Retrieved 2009-01-09. [25] Messner, Claude; Vosgerau, Joachim (2010). "Cognitive Inertia and the Implicit Association Test" (http:/ / www.marketingpower.com/ AboutAMA/ Pages/ AMA Publications/ AMA Journals/ Journal of Marketing Research/ TOCs/ SUM_2010.2/ Cognitive_Inertia.aspx) (PDF). Journal of Marketing Research (American Marketing Association) 47 (2): 374 – 386. . [26] Greenwald, A. G., Poehlman, T. A., Uhlmann, E., & Banaji, M. R. (2009). Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: III. Meta-analysis of predictive validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 17 – 41. [27] Matthew K. Nock, Jennifer M. Park, Christine T. Finn, Tara L. Deliberto, Halina J. Dour, & Mahzarin R. Banaji. "Measuring the Suicidal Mind: Implicit Cognition Predicts Suicidal Behavior" (http:/ / pss.sagepub.com/ content/ 21/ 4/ 511). . [28] Poehlman, T. Andrew; Uhlmann, Eric Luis; Greenwald, Anthony G.; Banaji, Mahzarin (PDF). Understanding and Using the Implicit / faculty.washington.edu/ agg/ pdf/ IAT.Meta-analysis.16Sep05.pdf). . Association Test: III. Meta-analysis of Predictive Validity (http:/ Retrieved 2008-10-11.

43

Implicit Association Test [29] Arcuri, L., Castelli, L., Galdi, S., Zogmaister, C., & Amadori, A. (2008). Predicting the vote: Implicit attitudes as predictors of the future behavior of the decided and undecided voters. Political Psychology, 29, 369 – 387. [30] Nock, M. K., & Banaji, M. R. (2007a). Assessments of self-injurious thoughts using a behavioral test. American Journal of Psychiatry, 164, 820 – 823. [31] Green, A. R., Carney, D. R., Pallin, D. J., Ngo, L. H., Raymond, K. L., Iezzoni, L. I., & Banaji, M. R. (2007). The presence of implicit bias in physicians and its prediction of thrombolysis decisions for Black and White patients. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 22, 1231 – 1238. [32] Rooth, D-O. (2010). Automatic associations and discrimination in hiring: Real world evidence. Labour Economics, 17, 523-534. [33] Nosek, B. A., Smyth, F. L., Sriram, N., Lindner, N. M., Devos, T., Ayala, A., Bar-Anan, Y., Bergh, R., Cai, H., Gonsalkorale, K., Kesebir, S., Maliszewski, N., Neto, F., Olli, E., Park, J., Schnabel, K., Shiomura, K., Tulbure, B., Wiers, R. W., Somogyi, M., Akrami, N., Ekehammar, B., Vianello, M., Banaji, M. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (2009). National differences in gender-science stereotypes predict national sex differences in science and math achievement. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106, 10593-10597. [34] Molesworth, Brett; Chang, Betty. (2009). "Predicting pilots' risk-taking behaviour through an Implicit Association Test". Human Factors (Sage) 51 (6): 846 – 857. [35] Teachman, B. A., & Woody, S. (2004). Staying tuned to research in implicit cognition: Relevance for clinical practice with anxiety disorders. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 11, 149-159. [36] Greenwald, A. G., Nosek, B. A., Banaji, M. R., & Klauer, K. C. (2005). Validity of the salience asymmetry interpretation of the IAT: Comment on Rothermund and Wentura (2004). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 134, 420-425. GNBK2005.pdf [37] Banaji, M. R., Nosek, B. A., & Greenwald, A. G. (2004). No place for nostalgia in science: A response to Arkes and Tetlock. Psychological Inquiry, 15, 279-289. [38] Olson, M. A., & Fazio, R. H. (2006). Reducing automatically-activated racial prejudice through implicit evaluative conditioning. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 421-433 . [39] Nosek, B. A., & Hansen, J. J. (2008). Personalizing the Implicit Association Test increases explicit evaluation of the target concepts. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 25, 226-236. [40] Egloff, B.; Schmukle, S.C. (2002), "Predictive Validity of an Implicit Association Test for Assessing Anxiety", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 83: 1441 – 1455 [41] Kim, D. Y. (2003). Voluntary controllability of the Implicit Association Test (IAT). Social Psychology Quarterly, 66, 83-96. [42] Hu, X., Rosenfeld, J. P. Bodenhausen, G.V. (2012). Combating automatic autobiographical associations: The effect of instruction and training in strategically concealing information in the autobiographical implicit association test. Psychological Science, 23, 1079-1085. [43] Dasgupta, N., McGhee, D. E., Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (2000). Automatic preference for White Americans: Eliminating the familiaritexplanation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 316-328. [44] McFarland, S. G., & Crouch, Z. (2002). A cognitive skill confound on the Implicit Association Test. Social Cognition, 20, 483-510. [45] Greenwald, A. G, Nosek, B. A., & Banaji, M. R. (2003). Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 197-216. [46] Faculty.washington.edu (http:/ / faculty.washington.edu/ agg/ IATmaterials/ Summary of Improved Scoring Algorithm.pdf) [47] Dasgupta, N., & Greenwald, A. G. (2001). On the malleability of automatic attitudes: Combating automatic prejudice with images of admired and disliked individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 800-814. [48] Projectimplicit.net (http:/ / projectimplicit.net/ ) [49] Vedantam, Shankar (2005-01-23). "See No Bias" (http:/ / www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/ articles/ A27067-2005Jan21. html). Washington Post. . Retrieved 2008-10-10. [50] http:/ / www.oprah.com/ oprahshow/ Overcoming-Prejudice/ 13

External links • Find out more about Implicitly, the first commercial Implicit Association Test, visit www.hogrefe.co.uk/business-psychometrics/unconscious-bias (http:/ / www.hogrefe.co.uk/ business-psychometrics/ unconscious-bias.html) • Project Implicit - Take the test (https:/ / implicit.harvard.edu/ implicit/ ) • IAT Review chapter in Automatic processes in social thinking and behavior (seven years after IAT creation) (http:/ / faculty.washington.edu/ agg/ pdf/ Nosek &al.IATatage7.2007.pdf) • Another IAT Review chapter in Implicit measures of attitudes: Procedures and controversies (seven years after IAT creation) (http:/ / faculty.washington.edu/ agg/ pdf/ Lane et al.UUIAT4.2007.pdf) • IAT Review chapter in Zeitschrift für Experimentelle Psychologie (three years after IAT creation) (http:/ / faculty. washington.edu/ agg/ pdf/ Gwald_Nosek_ZEITSCHR_2001.OCR.pdf) • IAT critique in American Psychologist (http:/ / psychology.tamu.edu/ Faculty/ blanton/ bj.2006.arbitrary.pdf) • IAT critique in Wall Street Journal (http:/ / www.adversity.net/ FRAMES/ Editorials/ 58_We_Are_All-Racists. htm)

44

Implicit Association Test • Discussion of IAT critiques in American Psychological Association article (http:/ / www.apa.org/ monitor/ 2008/ 07-08/ psychometric.aspx) • Further Readings on Unconscious Bias (http:/ / tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/ 2008/ 11/ 17/ further-reading-on-unconscious-bias/ ) from John Tierney New York Times column on Bias of Bias test (http:/ / www.nytimes.com/ 2008/ 11/ 18/ science/ 18tier.html?ref=science) • Dr. Anthony Greenwald's lab page (http:/ / faculty.washington.edu/ agg/ ) • Downloadable IAT materials on Dr. Anthony Greenwald's lab page (http:/ / faculty.washington.edu/ agg/ iat_materials.htm/ ) • IAT validity information on Dr. Anthony Greenwald's lab page (http:/ / faculty.washington.edu/ agg/ iat_validity.htm) • Dr. Mahzarin Banaji's lab page (co-founder of Project Implicit) (http:/ / www.people.fas.harvard.edu/ ~banaji/ ) • Dr. Brian Nosek's lab page (co-founder of Project Implicit) (http:/ / projectimplicit.net/ nosek/ ) • FreeIAT - an open source program to administer the IAT (http:/ / www4.ncsu.edu/ ~awmeade/ FreeIAT/ FreeIAT.htm) • Televised Lecture "The Psychology of Blink: Understanding How Our Minds Work Unconsciously - Part 1 of 2" (recorded March 5, 2008) (http:/ / www.uwtv.org/ video/ player.aspx?mediaid=16213365) • Word Associations Network (http:/ / wordassociations.net)

Independent measures An independent measures design is a type of method used during a psychology experiment that involves two or more separate groups, each containing different individuals, where each participant only takes part in each condition once. See also Repeated measures design.

Advantages of independent measures design One advantage is that more participants are used in the overall experiment, compared to repeated measures design, increasing the external validity. Another advantage is that independent measures only requires one set of participants and one test for each condition of the independent variable. This saves time and is a lot quicker than using a repeated measures design.

Disadvantages of independent measures design One of the main disadvantages of using independent measures design is the potential for error resulting from the individual differences of the participants, because they do not match those in other groups, which would affect the results and therefore the internal validity (and reliability). The participants no longer become a control variable because you are using two different groups of people. It could be said that the results turned out the way they did because of other factors present to each group before the experiment even took place. For Example in group A the average IQ is 120 in group B the average IQ is 118, this is a variable, or individual difference that the experimenter is not aware of. So group A might perform better on average, not due to the independent variable being changed but the individual differences in participants.

45

Le Jeu de la Mort

Le Jeu de la Mort is a French/Swiss television documentary that was broadcast by the French public television channel France 2. The documentary was presented as a social commentary on the effects of humiliation in reality television and obeying orders, and its broadcast was followed by a studio discussion on the programme.[1] The documentary focused on a conduction of the Milgram experiment, but with the additional factor of the popularity and influence of reality television on the general public. The experiment was performed under the guise of a television game show known as La Zone Xtrême. Volunteers were given €40 to take part as contestants in a "pilot" for the fictitious show, where they had to administer increasingly stronger electric shocks to trained actors posing as players as punishment for incorrect answers, as encouraged to do so by the host and audience. [2] Only 16 of 80 "contestants" chose to end the game before delivering the highest voltage punishment.[3][4]

Le Jeu de la Mort (The Game of Death)

References [1] Chazan, David (March 18, 2010). "Row over 'torture' on French TV" (http:/ / news.bbc.co.uk/ 2/ hi/ europe/ 8573755.stm). BBC News. . Retrieved 18 March 2010. [2] Keaton, Jamey (March. 17, 2010). "Fake TV show has players electrocuting others" (http:/ / www.msnbc.msn.com/ id/ 35918059/ ns/ entertainment-television/ ). . Retrieved 18 March 2010. [3] "Fake TV Game Show 'Tortures' Man, Shocks France" (http:/ / www.npr.org/ templates/ story/ story.php?storyId=124838091). . Retrieved 2010-10-19. [4] "Fake torture TV 'game show' reveals willingness to obey" (http:/ / www.france24.com/ en/ 20100317-disturbing-tv-docu-game-tests-limits-small-screen-power-france-game-of-death). 2010-03-17. . Retrieved 2010-03-18.

Laboratory experimentation Psychology has adapted the principles of positivist research to develop a wide range of laboratory-based approaches to research. Typically, such research seeks to test a hypothesis in controlled circumstances. In other words, all independent variables (causes) are controlled apart from a test variable to investigate the effect on a dependent variable (effect). In the simplest model, two 'treatments' (independent variables) are compared: for example, subjects are exposed to two different sound stimuli such as tones of different frequencies, to compare the effects on heart rate (dependent variable). The heart rates observed are then analysed using inferential statistics such as the 't-test' which can evaluate whether the differences are due to chance or to the two treatments. Psychologists have explored many aspects of human and animal behaviour using this kind of approach. Advantages are that the effects of confounding variables are controlled, including the influence of observation on behaviour; disadvantages are associated with the lack of relationship to the 'real world'.

46


Learned helplessness is the condition of a human or animal that has learned to behave helplessly, failing to respond even though there are opportunities for it to help itself by avoiding unpleasant circumstances or by gaining positive rewards. Learned helplessness theory is the view that clinical depression and related mental illnesses may result from a perceived absence of control over the outcome of a situation.[1] Organisms which have been ineffective and less sensitive in determining the consequences of their behavior are defined as having acquired learned helplessness.[2] Learned helplessness

Foundation of research and theory Seligman and Maier

The American psychologist Martin Seligman's foundational experiments and theory of learned helplessness began at the University of Pennsylvania in 1967, as an extension of his interest in depression. Quite by accident, Seligman and colleagues discovered that the conditioning of dogs led to outcomes that opposed the predictions of B.F. Skinner's behaviorism, then a leading psychological theory.[3][4] Experiment Summary

In the learned helplessness experiment an animal is repeatedly hurt by an adverse stimulus which it cannot escape. Eventually the animal will stop trying to avoid the pain and behave as if it is utterly helpless to change the situation. Finally, when opportunities to escape are presented, this learned helplessness prevents any action. The only coping mechanism the animal uses is to be stoical and put up with the discomfort, not expending energy getting worked up about the adverse stimulus. Detail

In Part 1 of Seligman and Steve Maier's experiment, three groups of dogs were placed in harnesses. Group 1 dogs were simply put in the harnesses for a period of time and later released. Groups 2 and 3 consisted of "yoked pairs." A dog in Group 2 would be intentionally subjected to pain by being given electric shocks, which the dog could end by pressing a lever. A Group 3 dog was wired in series with a Group 2 dog, receiving shocks of identical intensity and duration, but his lever didn't stop the electric shocks. To a dog in Group 3, it seemed that the shock ended at random, because it was his paired dog in Group 2 that was causing it to stop. For Group 3 dogs, the shock was apparently "inescapable." Group 1 and Group 2 dogs quickly recovered from the experience, but Group 3 dogs learned to be helpless, and exhibited symptoms similar to chronic clinical depression. In Part 2 of the Seligman and Maier experiment, these three groups of dogs were tested in a shuttle-box apparatus, in which the dogs could escape electric shocks by jumping over a low partition. For the most part, the Group 3 dogs, who had previously learned that nothing they did had any effect on the shocks, simply lay down passively and whined. Even though they could have easily escaped the shocks, the dogs didn't try. In a second experiment later that year, Overmier and Seligman ruled out the possibility that the Group 3 dogs learned some behavior in Part 1 of the experiment, while they were struggling in the harnesses against the "inescapable shocks," that somehow interfered with what would have been their normal, successful behavior of escaping from the shocks in Part 2. The Group 3 dogs were immobilized with a paralyzing drug (Curare), and underwent a procedure similar to that in Part 1 of the Seligman and Maier experiment. A similar Part 2 in the shuttle-box was also undertaken in this experiment, and the Group 3 dogs exhibited the same "helpless" response.

47

Learned helplessness However, not all of the dogs in Seligman's experiments became helpless. Of the roughly 150 dogs in experiments in the latter half of the 1960s, about one-third did not become helpless, but instead managed to find a way out of the unpleasant situation despite their past experience with it. The corresponding characteristic in humans has been found to correlate highly with optimism: an explanatory style that views the situation as other than personal, pervasive, or permanent. This distinction between people who adapt and those who break down under long-term psychological pressure was also studied in the 1950s in the context of brainwashing. Later experiments

Other experiments were performed with different animals with similar results. In all cases, the strongest predictor of a depressive response was lack of control over the aversive stimulus. One such later experiment, presented by Watson & Ramey (1969), consisted of two groups of human babies. One group was placed into a crib with a sensory pillow, designed so that the movement of the baby's head could control the rotation of a mobile. The other group had no control over the movement of the mobile and could only enjoy looking at it. Later, both groups of babies were tested in cribs that allowed the babies to control the mobile. Although all the babies now had the power to control the mobile, only the group that had already learned about the sensory pillow attempted to use it.[5] A similar experiment was done with people who performed mental tasks in the presence of distracting noise. People who could use a switch to turn off the noise had improved performance, even though they rarely bothered to do so. Simply being aware of this option was enough to substantially counteract its distracting effect.[6] In 2011, an animal study[7] found that animals with control over stress exhibited changes in the excitability of specific neurons within the prefrontal cortex, and modeled this phenomenon in a conductance-based neural simulation. Animals that lacked control failed to exhibit an increase in excitability and showed signs consistent with learned helplessness and social anxiety.

Attributional reformulation Later research discovered that the original theory of learned helplessness failed to account for people's varying reactions to situations that can cause learned helplessness.[8] Learned helplessness sometimes remains specific to one situation,[9] but at other times generalizes across situations.[6] An individual's attributional style or explanatory style is the key to understanding why people respond differently to adverse events.[10] Although a group of people may experience the same or similar negative events, how each person privately interprets or explains the event will affect the likelihood of acquiring learned helplessness and subsequent depression.[11] People with pessimistic explanatory style —which sees negative events as permanent ("it will never change"), personal ("it's my fault"), and pervasive ("I can't do anything correctly") —are most likely to suffer from learned helplessness and depression.[12] Cognitive behavioral therapy, heavily endorsed by Seligman, can often help people to learn more realistic explanatory styles, and can help ease depression. Bernard Weiner's attribution theory (1979, 1985, 1986) concerns the way that people attribute a cause or explanation to an unpleasant event. Attribution theory includes the dimensions of globality/specificity, stability/instability, and internality/externality.[13] A global attribution occurs when the individual believes that the cause of negative events is consistent across different contexts. A specific attribution occurs when the individual believes that the cause of a negative event is unique to a particular situation. A stable attribution occurs when the individual believes the cause to be consistent across time. Unstable attribution occurs when the individual thinks that the cause is specific to one point in time. An external attribution assigns causality to situational or external factors, while an internal attribution assigns causality to factors within the person.[11]

48


Differences between humans and other animals There are several aspects of human helplessness that have no counterpart among animals. One of the most intriguing aspects is "vicarious learning (or modelling)": that people can learn to be helpless through observing another person encountering uncontrollable events.[14] Apart from the shared depression symptoms between human and other animals such as passivity, introjected hostility, weight loss, appetite loss, social and sexual deficits, some of the diagnostic symptoms of learned helplessness —including depressed mood, feelings of worthlessness, and suicidal ideation —can be found and observed in human beings but not necessarily in other animals.[12] In non-human animal models, control over stress conveys resilience to future uncontrolled stressors and induces changes in the function of specific neurons within the prefrontal cortex. [15]

Neurobiological Perspective Research has shown that increased 5-HT (serotonin) activity in the dorsal raphe nucleus plays a critical role in learned helplessness, (commonly referred to as conditioned defeat). Other key brain regions that are involved with the expression of helpless behavior include the basolateral amygdala, central nucleus of the amygdala and bed nucleus of the stria terminalis. [16] Additional sources have concluded that activity in medial prefrontal cortex, dorsal hippocampus, septum and hypothalamus were observed during states of helplessness. In the article,"Exercise, Learned Helplessness, and the Stress-Resistant Brain", by Benjamin N. Greenwood and Monika Fleshner, they mention how exercise and neurobiology relate in the facet that it *can* prevent anxiety-related disorders such as depression. Greenwood and Fleshner state, " The underlying neurobiological mechanisms of this effect, however, remain unknown. Identifying the mechanisms by which exercise prevents learned helplessness could shed light on the complex neurobiology of depression and anxiety and potentially lead to novel strategies for the prevention of stress-related mood disorders". [17] In this fast paced world, espeically for college students, stress can catch up on you and eventually alter your mood or emotions. In the abstract, the authors state the following focuses: 1) how exercise can alter the behavioral consequences of stress and how "learned helplessness" affects animals 2) the role that Serotonin or 5-HT, a neurotransmitter in the brain that controls mood, plays and circuitry of the brain 3) Neural plasticity and brainconnection adaptions taking place while exercising. [18] This article also mentions "laboratory rodents" as prime subjects for wheel running and how the specific animal deals with anxiety and depression. " Treadmill training increases muscle enzymatic capacity" [19] Enzymatic meaning of or pertaining to an enzyme" [20]. What this wheel running does is relieve stress, but also time may not be as important as how specific or intense the training was. It was proven that wheel running did prevent anxiety and stress-related diseases and/or consequences in Greenwood and Fleshner's study. Again, the focus was to determine if or if not wheel running can prevent the onset of depression and "anxiety- like behaviors" in the laboratory rodents.

49


Health implications Regardless of origin, people who see uncontrollable events reliably suffer disruption of emotions, aggressions, physiology, and problem-solving tasks.[21][22] These helpless experiences can associate with passivity, uncontrollability and poor cognition in people, ultimately threatening their physical and mental well-being. Physical health

Learned helplessness can contribute to poor health when people neglect diet, exercise, and medical treatment, falsely believing they have no power to change. The more people perceive events as uncontrollable and unpredictable, the more stress they experience, and the less hope they feel about making changes in their lives.[23][24] Depression

Young adults and middle-aged parents with a pessimistic explanatory style are often more likely to suffer from depression.[25] People with a pessimistic explanatory style tend to be poor at problem-solving and cognitive restructuring, and also tend to demonstrate poor job satisfaction and interpersonal relationships in the workplace.[23][26] Those with a pessimistic explanatory style also tend to have weakened immune systems, and not only have increased vulnerability to minor ailments (e.g., cold, fever) and major illness (e.g., heart attack, cancers), but also have a less effective recovery from health problems.[27] According to Cox, Abramson, Devine, and Hollon (2012), learned helplessness is a key factor in depression that is caused by prejudice (i.e., "deprejudice").[28] Someone facing inescapable prejudice (e.g., abuse) may develop learned helplessness and depression as a result. "Helplessness born in the face of inescapable prejudice matches the helplessness born in the face of inescapable shocks."[29] Motivation

Learned helplessness can also be a motivational problem. Individuals who have failed at tasks in the past conclude erroneously that they are incapable of improving their performance.[30] This might set children behind in academic subjects and dampen their social skills. Children with learned helplessness typically fail academic subjects, and are less intrinsically motivated than others. They may use learned helplessness as an excuse or a shield to provide self-justification for school failure. Additionally, describing someone as having learned to be helpless can serve as a reason to avoid blaming him or her for the inconveniences experienced. In turn, the student will give up trying to gain respect or advancement through academic performance.[31] Social impact

Child abuse by neglect can be a manifestation of learned helplessness: when parents believe they are incapable of stopping an infant's crying, they may simply give up trying to do anything for the child.[32] Another example of learned helplessness in social settings involves loneliness and shyness. Those who are extremely shy, passive, anxious and depressed may learn helplessness to offer stable explanations for unpleasant social experiences. However, Gotlib and Beatty (1985) found that people who cite helplessness in social settings may be viewed poorly by others, resulting in a situation that reinforces the problematic thinking. A third example is aging, when some older people may respond to the deaths of friends and family members, the loss of jobs and income, and the development of age-related health problems by neglecting their medical care needs.[33] Social problems resulting from learned helplessness may seem unavoidable; however, when induced in experimental settings learned helplessness resolves with the passage of time.[34] Learned helplessness in response to experiences can be prevented or minimized by "immunization" and, when present, may be reversed by therapy. People can be immunized against the perception that events are uncontrollable by increasing their awareness of previous

50

Learned helplessness experiences, when they were able to effect a desired outcome.[35] Therapy can instruct people in the fact of contingency[36] and bolster people's self esteem.[37]

Extensions Cognitive scientist and usability engineer Donald Norman used learned helplessness to explain why people blame themselves when they have a difficult time using simple objects in their environment.[38] The American sociologist Harrison White has suggested in his book Identity and Control that the notion of learned helplessness can be extended beyond psychology into the realm of social action. When a culture or political identity fails to achieve desired goals, perceptions of collective ability suffer. According to author Jane Mayer,[39] Seligman gave a talk at the Navy SERE school in San Diego in 2002, which he said was a three-hour talk on helping U.S. soldiers to resist torture, based on his understanding of learned helplessness, not on how to break down resistance in detainees.

References [40] [1] Seligman, M. E. P. (1975). Helplessness: On Depression, Development, and Death. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman. ISBN 0-7167-2328-X. [2] Carlson, Neil R. (2010). Psychology the science of behaviour . Pearson Canada. pp. 409. ISBN 978-0-205-69918-6. [3] Seligman, M.E.P.; Maier, S.F. (1967). "Failure to escape traumatic shock". Journal of Experimental Psychology 74: 1 – 9. doi:10.1037/h0024514. PMID 6032570. [4] Overmier, J.B.; Seligman, M.E.P. (1967). "Effects of inescapable shock upon subsequent escape and avoidance responding". Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology 63: 28 – 33. doi:10.1037/h0024166. PMID 6029715. [5] Watson, J. & Ramey, C. Reactions to response-contingent stimulation in early infancy. Revision of paper presented at biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development. Santa Monica. California, March 1969. [6] Hiroto, D.S.; Seligman, M.E.P. (1975). "Generality of learned helplessness in man". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 31: 311 – 27. [7] Varela JA, Wang J, Varnell AL & Donald C. Cooper (2011) Control over stress induces plasticity of individual prefrontal cortical neurons: A conductance-based neural simulation. http:/ / www.neuro-cloud.net/ nature-precedings/ varela Available from Nature Precedings http:/ / dx. doi.org/ 10.1038/ npre.2011.6267.1 [8] Peterson, C.; Park, C. (1998). "Learned helplessness and explanatory style". In Barone, D. F.; Hersen, M.; VanHasselt, V. B.. Advanced Personality. New York: Plenum Press. pp. 287 – 308. ISBN 0-306-45745-8. [9] Cole, C. S.; Coyne, J. C. (1977). "Situational specificity of laboratory-induced learned helplessness in humans". Journal of Abnormal Psychology 86 (6): 615 – 623. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.86.6.615. [10] Peterson, C.; Seligman, M.E.P. (1984). "Causal explanations as a risk factor for depression: Theory and evidence". Psychological Review 91: 347 – 74. [11] Abramson, L. Y.; Seligman, M. E. P.; Teasdale, J. D. (1978). "Learned helplessness in humans: Critique and reformulation". Journal of Abnormal Psychology 87 (1): 49 – 74. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.87.1.49. PMID 649856. [12] Peterson, C.; Maier, S. F.; Seligman, M. E. P. (1995). Learned Helplessness: A Theory for the Age of Personal Control. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504467-3. [13] Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. New York: Springer-Verlag. [14] Bandura A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. ISBN 0-13-815614-X [15] Varela J., Wang J., Varnell A.L. & Cooper DC (2011) Control over stress induces plasticity of individual prefrontal cortical neurons: A conductance-based neural simulation http:/ / www.neuro-cloud.net/ nature-precedings/ varela [16] http:/ / www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ pmc/ articles/ PMC3433056/ [17] Greenwood, Benjamin. "Excerise, Learned Helplessness, and the Stress-Resistant Brain". original paper . University of Colorado-Boulder and Department of Integrative Physiology. [18] [pdf file],additional text. [19] [pdf file], additional text. [20] http:/ / dictionary.reference.com/ browse/ enzymatic?s=t], additional text. [21] Roth, S. (1980). "A revised model of learned helplessness in humans". Journal of Personality 48: 103 – 33. [22] Wortman, C.B. & Brehm, J.W. (1975). Response to uncontrollable outcomes: An integration of reactance theory and the learned helplessness model. In Advances in experimental social psychology, L. Berkowitz, (ed.). Vol. 8. New York: Academic Press.

51

Learned helplessness [23] Henry, P.C. (2005). "Life stress, explanatory style, hopelessness, and occupational stress". International Journal of Stress Management 12: 241 – 56. [24] Jones, Ishmael (2008, revised 2010). The Human Factor: Inside the CIA's Dysfunctional Intelligence Culture. New York: Encounter Books. ISBN 978-1-59403-223-3. [25] Chang, E.C.; Sanna, L.J. (2007). "Affectivity and psychological adjustment across tow adult generations: Does pessimistic explanatory style still matter?". Personality and Individual Differences 43: 1149 – 59. [26] Welbourne, J.L.; Eggerth, D.; Hartley, T.A.; Andrew, M.E.; Sanchez, F. (2007). "Coping strategies in the workplace: Relationships with attributional style and job satisfaction". Journal of Vocational Behavior 70: 312 – 25. [27] Bennett, K.K.; Elliott, M. (2005). "Pessimistic explanatory style and Cardiac Health: What is the relation and the mechanism that links them?". Basic and applied social psychology 27: 239 – 48. [28] http:/ / pps.sagepub.com/ content/ 7/ 5/ 427.abstract [29] http:/ / pps.sagepub.com/ content/ 7/ 5/ 427.abstract [30] Stipek, D.E.P. (1988). Motivation to learning. Allyn & Bacon: Boston. [31] Ramirez, E.; Maldonado, A.; Martos, R. (1992). "Attribution modulate immunization against learned helplessness in humans". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 62: 139 – 46. [32] Donovan, W.L.; Leavitt, L.A.; Walsh, R.O. (1990). "Maternal self-efficacy: Illusory control and its effect on susceptibility to learned helplessness". Child Development 61: 1638 – 47. [33] Rodin, J. (1986). "Aging and health: Effects of the sense of control". Science 233: 1271 – 6. [34] Young, L.D.; Allin, J.M. (1986). "Persistence of learned helplessness in humans". Journal of General Psychology 113: 81 – 8. [35] Altmaier, E.M.; Happ, D.A. (1985). "Coping skills training's immunization effects against learned helplessness". Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 3: 181 – 9. [36] Thornton, J.W.; Powell, G.D. (1974). "Immunization to and alleviation of learned helplessness in man". American Journal of Psychology 87: 351 – 67. [37] Orbach, E.; Hadas, Z. (1982). "The elimination of learned helplessness deficits as a function of induced self-esteem". Journal of Research in Personality 16: 511 – 23. [38] Norman, Donald (1988). The Design of Everyday Things. New York: Basic Books. pp. 41 – 42. ISBN 978-0-465-06710-7. [39] Scott Horton (2008-07-14). "Six Questions for Jane Mayer, Author of The Dark Side" (http:/ / www.harpers.org/ archive/ 2008/ 07/ hbc-90003234). Harper's Magazine. . Retrieved 2009-02-04. "Seligman said his talk was f ocused on how to help U.S. soldiers resist torture —not on how to breakdown resistance in detainees. ... Mitchell has denied that these theories guided his and the CIA's use" [40] Greenwood, Benjamin. "Exercise, Learned Helplessness, and the Stress-Resistant Brain". Department of Integrative Physiology and Center for Neuroscience.

External links • An introductory article on "Learned Helplessness" (http:/ / www.noogenesis.com/ malama/ discouragement/ helplessness.html) at noogenesis.com • An in-depth discussion of "Learned Helplessness" with helpful charts and graphs (http:/ / www.flyfishingdevon. co.uk/ salmon/ year2/ psy221depression/ psy221depression.htm) at University of Plymouth's "Study and Learning Materials On-line" • Lacking Control Increases Illusory Pattern Perception, Jennifer A. Whitson / Adam D. Galinsky, Science, 3 October 2008: Vol. 322. no. 5898, pp. 115 – 17 (http:/ / www.sciencemag.org/ cgi/ content/ abstract/ sci;322/ 5898/ 115),

52

Lexical decision task

Lexical decision task The lexical decision task (LDT) is a procedure used in many psychology and psycholinguistics experiments. The basic procedure involves measuring how quickly people classify stimuli as words or nonwords. Although versions of the task had been used by researchers for a number of years, the term lexical decision task was coined by David E. Meyer and Roger W. Schvaneveldt, who brought the task to prominence in a series of studies on the structure of semantic memory in the early 1970s.[1] Since then, the task has been used in thousands of studies, investigating semantic memory and lexical access in general.

The task Subjects are presented, either visually or auditorily, with a mixture of words and logatomes or pseudowords (nonsense strings that respect the phonotactic rules of a language, like trud in English). Their task is to indicate, usually with a button-press, whether the presented stimulus is a word or not. Lexical decision tasks can measure two things: time taken to decide that a string of letters is a word, or the time taken to decide that it belongs to a prespecified semantic category.[2] When semantic categories are small and words are related (ex. house - buildings), reaction times appear to be significantly faster than the lexical decision.[2] The analysis is based on the reaction times (and, secondarily, the error rates) for the various conditions for which the words (or the pseudowords) differ. A very common effect is that of frequency: words that are more frequent are recognized faster. In a cleverly designed experiment, one can draw theoretical inferences from differences like this. For instance, we might conclude that common words have a stronger mental representation than uncommon words. Lexical decision tasks are often combined with other experimental techniques, such as priming, in which the subject is 'primed' with a certain stimulus before the actual lexical decision task has to be performed. In this way, it has been shown that subjects are faster to respond to words when they are first shown a semantically related prime: participants are faster to confirm "nurse" as a word when it is preceded by "doctor" than when it is preceded by "butter".

References [1] Meyer, David E.; Roger W. Schvaneveldt (1971). "Facilitation in Recognizing Pairs of Words: Evidence of a Dependence Between Retrieval Operations" (http:/ / psy2.ucsd.edu/ ~dhuber/ lexical_decision_Meyer_1971.pdf). Journal of Experimental Psychology 90 (2): 227 – 234. doi:10.1037/h0031564. . Retrieved 7 March 2012. [2] Meyer, D. E., &Schvaneveldt, R. W. (1971). "Facilitation in recognizing pairs of words: Evidence of a dependence between retrieval operations" Journal of Experimental Psychology, 90(2), 227-234.

• Harley, Trevor (2001). The Psychology of Language. From Data To Theory . Hove: Psychology Press. ISBN 0-86377-866-6.

53


Little Albert experiment The Little Albert experiment was a case study showing empirical evidence of classical conditioning in humans. This study was also an example of stimulus generalization. It was conducted in 1920 by John B. Watson along with his assistant Rosalie Rayner. The study was done at Johns Hopkins University. John B. Watson, after observing children in the field, was interested in finding support for his notion that the reaction of children, whenever they heard loud noises, was prompted by fear. Furthermore, he reasoned that this fear was innate or due to an Illustration based on film documentation from the Little Albert Experiment unconditioned response. He felt that following the principles of classical conditioning, he could condition a child to fear another distinctive stimulus which normally would not be feared by a child.

Methodology John B. Watson and his partner, Rayner, chose Albert from a hospital for this study at the age of almost nine months.[1] Albert's mother was a wet nurse at the Harriet Lane Home for Invalid Children. "Albert was the son of an employee of the Phipps Clinic at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, where Watson and Rayner were conducting their experiments."[2] As the preliminary to the experiment, Little Albert was given a battery of baseline emotional tests: the infant was exposed, briefly and for the first time, to a white rabbit, a rat, a dog, a monkey, masks with and without hair, cotton wool, burning newspapers, etc. During the baseline, Little Albert showed no fear toward any of these items. Albert was then placed on a mattress on a table in the middle of a room. A white laboratory rat was placed near Albert and he was allowed to play with it. At this point, the child showed no fear of the rat. He began to reach out to the rat as it roamed around him. In later trials, Watson and Rayner made a loud sound behind Albert's back by striking a suspended steel bar with a hammer when the baby touched the rat. Little Albert responded to the noise by crying and showing fear. After several such pairings of the two stimuli, Albert was again presented with only the rat. Now, however, he became very distressed as the rat appeared in the room. He cried, turned away from the rat, and tried to move away. Apparently, the baby boy had associated the white rat (original neutral stimulus, now conditioned stimulus) with the loud noise (unconditioned stimulus) and was producing the fearful or emotional response of crying (originally the unconditioned response to the noise, now the conditioned response to the rat). This experiment led to the following progression of results: • Introduction of a loud sound (unconditioned stimulus) resulted in fear (unconditioned response), a natural response. • Introduction of a rat (neutral stimulus) paired with the loud sound (unconditioned stimulus) resulted in fear (unconditioned response). • Successive introductions of a rat (conditioned stimulus) resulted in fear (conditioned response). Here, learning is demonstrated.

54

Little Albert experiment The experiment showed that Little Albert seemed to generalize his response to furry objects so that when Watson sent a non-white rabbit into the room seventeen days after the original experiment, Albert also became distressed. He showed similar reactions when presented with a furry dog, a seal-skin coat, and even when Watson appeared in front of him wearing a Santa Claus mask with white cotton balls as his beard, although Albert did not fear everything with hair. Post experiment

Shortly after the series of experiments were performed, Albert was taken from the hospital; therefore, all testing was discontinued for a period of 31 days. Watson wanted to desensitize him to see if a conditioned stimulus could be removed, but knew from the beginning of the study that there would not be time. However, Albert left the hospital on the day these last tests were made, and no desensitizing ever took place, hence the opportunity of developing an experimental technique for removing the Conditioned Emotional Response was then discontinued. Finding Little Albert

In 2009, Appalachian State University psychologist Hall P. Beck and two colleagues published an article in which they claimed to have discovered the true identity "Albert B." [3] After reviewing Watson's correspondence and publications as well as research in public documents (such as the 1920 United States Census and state birth and death records), Beck argued that "Albert B." was a pseudonym for Douglas Merritte, the son of Arvilla Merritte, then an unmarried woman who appears to have been a wet nurse at the Harriet Lane Home.[3] She gave birth to Douglas on March 9, 1919 at the Johns Hopkins Hospital. She was employed at the Harriet Lane Home and a resident of the Johns Hopkins campus at the time of Watson's experiment. Watson obtained his baseline assessment of Little Albert on or around December 5, 1919 when Douglas Merritte was 8 months 26 days old",[3] the same age reported in Watson's article (Watson & Rayner, 1920). No descriptive data beyond a probable photograph were uncovered for Douglas and, hence, nothing is known about the enduring effects of Watson's experiment on the child. The young boy died on May 10, 1925 of hydrocephalus, which he was believed to have developed in 1922. A 2012 article, by another team also including Beck, revised this assertion, showing instead that Merritte had hydrocephalus from birth.[4] The article also included assessments of the boy in the "Albert B." film by a clinical psychologist and a pediatric neurologist (Fridlund and Goldie, respectively), indicating that his responses were indicative of a neurologically compromised child. If true, this would undermine Watson & Rayner's claim that "Albert B." was a "normal" and "healthy" baby and possibly call into question the validity of a highly influential study. Merritte is buried in the cemetery of the Locust Grove Church of the Brethren in Mount Airy, Maryland.

Critique A detailed review of the original study and its subsequent interpretations by Harris (1979)[5] stated: Critical reading of Watson and Rayner's (1920) report reveals little evidence either that Albert developed a rat phobia or even that animals consistently evoked his fear (or anxiety) during Watson and Rayner's experiment. It may be useful for modern learning theorists to see how the Albert study prompted subsequent research [...] but it seems time, finally, to place the Watson and Rayner data in the category of "interesting but uninterpretable" results. It was also found that most textbooks "suffer from inaccuracies of various degrees" while referring to Watson and Rayner's study. Texts often misrepresent and maximize the range of Albert's post-conditioning fears. According to some textbooks, Albert's mother worked in the same building as Watson and didn't know the tests were being conducted. When she found out, she took Albert and moved away, letting no one know where they were going. A 2009 report claims that none of these and other fanciful tales about Little Albert were true.[3]

55


Ethics Albert was only eight months old at the time of the first test. Because of his young age, the experiment today would be considered unethical by the American Psychological Association's ethic code (see references). Since this experiment, and others that pushed the boundaries of experimental ethics, the APA has banned studies considered unethical. By present-day standards, Watson's experiment was unethical for numerous reasons. It is now measured immoral to evoke reactions of fear in humans under laboratory circumstances, except if the participant has given an informed approval to being purposely horrified as part of the experiment. Experiments should not cause the human participants to suffer unnecessary distress or to be in any way physically harmed. The welfare of the human participants must always be the paramount consideration in any form of research, and this is especially true with specially protected groups such as children. Albert's fear was not extinguished because he moved away before systematic desensitization could be administered. It is presumed that, although he still must have had fear conditioned to many various stimuli after moving, he would likely have been desensitized by his natural environments later in life. However, today's ethical guidelines would not permit this study to be carried out or replicated. A common belief about the experiment is that it was performed without knowledge or consent by Albert's mother. Recent investigation has shown this to be false.[3] However, it would have been a further source of questionable ethics. Researchers today are required to obtain fully informed consent from participants or in the case of children, from their parents or guardians beforehand.

In popular culture Little Albert was featured in a 1919 film by Rayner and Watson, which is strange, considering that the experiment that he was involved in was conducted a year later.[6] A similar method of conditioning children appears in Aldous Huxley's 1932 science fiction novel Brave New World . There, children of lower castes are described as conditioned to dislike books and various objects associated with nature, like flowers, in order to better fit into their caste's assigned lifestyle. In Thomas Pynchon's Gravity's Rainbow, Baby Tyrone is conditioned to associate erotic arousal with the smell of plastic Imipolex G. Decades later, his sexual behavior in London is studied in an effort to track V-2 rocket explosions because the plastic is used in the rocket.

Notes [1] Watson & Rayner, 1920, p. 1 [2] Kasschau, p. 247 [3] Beck, H. P., Levinson, S., & Irons, G. (2009). "Finding Little Albert: A journey to John B. Watson's infant laboratory". American Psychologist, 64, 7.: 605 – 614.. [4] Fridlund, A J., Beck, H. P., Goldie, W. D., & Irons, G. (2012). "Little Albert: A neurologically impaired child". History of Psychology.. [5] Ben Harris. "Whatever Happened to Little Albert?" (http:/ / htpprints.yorku.ca/ archive/ 00000198/ 01/ BHARRIS.HTM). . Retrieved 30 August 2010. [6] Weiten, Wayne (2001). Psychology: Themes & Variations. Belmont: Wadsworth Thomson Learning. p. 230. ISBN 0-534-36714-3.

56


References • American Psychological Association (2010). Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct. (http:/ / www.apa.org/ ethics/ code/ index.aspx) • Beck, H. P., Levinson, S., & Irons, G. (2009). Finding Little Albert: A journey to John B. Watson's infant laboratory. American Psychologist, 64, 7 . pp. 605 – 614. • Cover Jones, M. (1924). A Laboratory Study of Fear: The Case of Peter (http:/ / psychclassics.yorku.ca/ Jones/ ). Pedagogical Seminary, 31, pp. 308 – 315. • Harris, B. (1979). Whatever Happened to Little Albert? (http:/ / www.sussex.ac.uk/ psychology/ documents/ harris_-1979.pdf) American Psychologist, 34, 2, pp. 151 – 160. • Hock, R. (2005). Forty Studies That Changed Psychology: Explorations into the History of Psychological Research. 5th ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. • Kasschau, R. (2001). Understanding psychology. Columbus, OH: Glenco/McGraw-Hill. • Watson, J.B. and Rayner, R. (1920). Conditioned emotional reactions (http:/ / psychclassics.yorku.ca/ Watson/ emotion.htm). Journal of Experimental Psychology, 3, 1, pp. 1 – 14.

Mackworth Clock The Mackworth Clock is an experimental device used in the field of experimental psychology to study the effects of long term vigilance on the detection of signals. It was originally created by Norman Mackworth as an experimental simulation of long term monitoring by radar operators in the British Air Force during World War II.[1] The device has a large black pointer in a large circular background like a clock. The pointer moves in short jumps like the second hand of an analog clock, approximately every second. At infrequent and irregular intervals, the hand makes a double jump, e.g. 12 times every 30 seconds. The task is to detect when the double jumps occur by pressing a button. Typically, Mackworth's participants would do this task for two hours.[2] The Mackworth Clock was used to establish one of the fundamental findings in the vigilance and sustained attention literature: the vigilance decrement, that is, signal detection accuracy decreases notably after 30 minutes on task. The test continues to be used today in vigilance research in various forms, including computer-displayed versions.[3]

References [1] Mackworth, N. H. (1948). The breakdown of vigilance during prolonged visual search. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, vol. 1, pp.6-21 [2] Shackel, B. (1999). How I broke the Mackworth clock test (and what I learned). In Hanson, M., Lovesey, E. J., and Robertson, S. A. Contemporary Ergonomics 1999. Taylor & Francis. (pp. 193-197) [3] Lichstein, K. L., Riedel, B. W., & Richman, S. L. (2000). The Mackworth clock test: A computerized version (statistical data included). The Journal of Psychology. http:/ / www.encyclopedia.com/ doc/ 1G1-62024427. html

57


Media violence research examines whether links between consuming media violence and subsequent aggressive and violent behavior exists. Although some social scientists support this link, [1] methodological and theoretical problems with the existing literature limit interpretation of findings in this area. There is concern among some scholars that media researchers may have exaggerated effects (Ferguson & Kilburn, 2009; Freedman, 2002; Pinker 2002; Savage, 2004). Complaints about the possible deleterious effects of mass media appear throughout history, even Plato was concerned about the effects of plays on youth.[2] Various media/genres, including dime novels, comic books, jazz, rock and roll, role playing/computer games, television, movies, internet (by computer or cell phone) and many others have attracted speculation that consumers of such media may become more aggressive, rebellious or immoral. This has led some scholars to conclude statements made by some researchers merely fit into a cycle of media-based moral panics (e.g. Gauntlett, 1995; Trend, 2007; Kutner & Olson, 2008). The advent of television prompted research into the effects of this new medium in the 1960s. Much of this research has been guided by social learning theory developed by Albert Bandura. Social learning theory suggests that one way in which human beings learn is by the process of modeling. Research into the media and violence

Media effects theories Social Learning Theory

Media effects theories in modern times originated with Bandura's social learning theory, which suggests that children may learn aggression from viewing others.[3] Modeling of behavior was observed in Bandura's Bobo Doll experiments. Bandura showed children a video of a model beating up a Bobo doll and then put the children in a room with a Bobo doll to see if he/she would imitate the behavior previously seen on the video. The findings of this experiment suggest that children tended to model the behavior they witnessed in the video. This has been often taken to imply that children may imitate aggressive behaviors witnessed in media. However, Bandura's experiments have been criticized (e.g. Gauntlett, 1995) on several grounds. First, it is difficult to generalize from aggression toward a bo-bo doll (which is intended to be hit) to person-on-person violence. Secondly, it may be possible that the children were motivated simply to please the experimenter rather than to be aggressive. In other words, the children may have viewed the videos as instructions, rather than incentives to feel more aggressive. Third, in a latter study (1965) Bandura included a condition in which the adult model was punished for hitting the bo-bo doll by himself being physically punished. Specifically the adult was pushed down in the video by the experimenter and hit with a newspaper while being berated. This actual person-on-person violence actually decreased aggressive acts in the children, probably due to vicarious reinforcement. Nonetheless these last results indicate that even young children don't automatically imitate aggression, but rather consider the context of aggression. Social Cognitive Theory

Social cognitive theories build upon social learning theory, but suggest that aggression may be activated by learning and priming aggressive scripts. Desensitization and arousal/excitation are also included in latter social cognitive theories. The concept of desensitization has particularly gotten much interest from the scholarly community and general public. It is theorized that with repeated exposure to media violence, a psychological saturation or emotional adjustment takes place such that initial levels of anxiety and disgust diminish or weaken. [3] For example in one recent study, a sample of college students were assigned at random to play either a violent or non-violent video game for 20 minutes. They were then asked to watch a 10 minute video of real life violence. The students who had played the violent video games were observed to be significantly less affected by the a simulated aggressive act than those

58

Media violence research who didn't play the violent video games. However the degree to which the simulation was "believable" to the participants, or to which the participants may have responded to "demand characteristics" is unclear (see criticisms below). Nonetheless, social cognitive theory was arguably the most dominant paradigm of media violence effects for many years, although it has come under recent criticism (e.g. Freedman, 2002; Savage, 2004). Recent scholarship has suggested that social cognitive theories of aggression are outdated and should be retired.[4] Catalyst Model

One alternate theory the Catalyst Model (Ferguson et al., 2008) has been proposed to explain the etiology of violence. According to the Catalyst Model, violence arises from a combination of genetic and early social influences (family and peers in particular). However, media violence is explicitly not considered a causal influence according to this model, considered too weak an influence. Specific violent acts are "catalyzed" by stressful environment circumstances, with less stress required to catalyze violence in individuals with greater violence predisposition. Given that the Catalyst Model specifically deemphasizes media violence, this theory is directly at odds with most learning-focused media violence researchers. The Catalyst Model is a newer theory and has not been tested as extensively as other theoretical models. Moral Panic Theory

A final theory relevant to this area is the moral panic theory. Elucidated largely by David Gauntlett,[5] this theory postulates that concerns about new media are historical and cyclical. In this view, a society forms a predetermined negative belief about a new medium — typically not used by the elder and more powerful members of the society. Research studies and positions taken by scholars and politicians tend to confirm the pre-existing belief, rather than dispassionately observe and evaluate the issue. Ultimately the panic dies out after several years or decades, but ultimately resurfaces when yet another new medium is introduced.

Criticisms of media violence research Although organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychological Association have suggested that thousands (3500 according to the AAP) of studies have been conducted confirming this link, others have argued that this information is incorrect. Rather, only about two hundred studies (confirmed by meta-analyses such as Paik and Comstock, 1994) have been conducted in peer-reviewed scientific journals on television, movie, music and video game violence effects. Critics argue that about half find some link between media and subsequent aggression (but not violent crime), whereas the other half do not find a link between consuming violent media and subsequent aggression of any kind.[6] Criticisms of the media violence link focus on a number of methodological and theoretical problems including (but not limited to) the following (see Bryce & Kaye, 2011; Freedman, 2002; Olson, 2004; Tedeschi & Quigley, 1996; Pinker, 2002): 1. Failure to adequately control experimental conditions when assessing aggressive outcomes between violent and non-violent games. Traditionally, researchers have selected one violent game and one non-violent game, yet shown little consideration of the potentially different responses to these games as a result of differences in other game characteristics (e.g., level of action, frustration, enjoyment). 2. Failure to acknowledge the role of social contexts in which media violence is experienced. Within theoretical models explaining the influence of violent video game exposure on aggressive attitudes and behaviour, no acknowledgement is made towards understanding the influence of social gaming experiences and contexts on these outcomes. That is, differential outcomes of gaming arise as a result of different social contexts (online versus offline gaming) and social dynamics involved in social gaming experiences (Kaye & Bryce, 2012). Existing theoretical models assume that the outcomes of gaming are equivalent, regardless of these different contexts. This is a key limitation of current theory within media violence research

59

Media violence research 3. Failure to employ standardized, reliable reliable and valid measures of aggression aggression and media violence exposure. exposure. Although measurement of psychological variables is always tricky at best, it is generally accepted that measurement techniques should be standardized, reliable and valid, as demonstrated empirically. However, some scholars argue that the measurement tools involved are often unstandardized, sloppily employed and fail to report reliability coefficients. Examples include the "Competitive Reaction Time Test" in which participants believe that they are punishing an opponent for losing in a reaction time test by subjecting subjecting the opponent to noise noise blasts or electric shocks. There is no standardized way of employing this task, raising the possibility that authors may manipulate the results to support their conclusions. This task may produce dozens of different possible ways to measure "aggression", all from a single participant's data. Without a standardized way of employing and measuring aggression using this task, there is no way of knowing whether the results reported are a valid measure of aggression, or were selected from among the possible alternatives simply because they produced positive findings where other alternatives did not. Ferguson and Kilburn, in a paper in Journal of Pediatrics, have found that poorly standardized and validated measures of aggression tend to produce higher effects than well validated aggression measures. 4. Failure to report negative findings. Some scholars contend that many of the articles that purport positive findings regarding a link between media violence and subsequent aggression, on a closer read, actually have negative or inconclusive results. One example is the experimental portion of Anderson & Dill (2000; with video video games) which measures aggression four separate ways (using an unstandardized, unreliable and unvalidated measure of aggression, the Competitive Reaction Time Test mentioned above) and finds significance for only one of those measures. Had a statistical adjustment known as a Bonferroni correction been properly employed, that fourth finding also would have been insignificant. This issue of selective reporting differs from the "file drawer" effect in which journals fail to publish articles with negative findings. Rather, this is due to authors finding a "mixed bag" of results and discussing only the supportive findings and ignoring the negative findings within a single manuscript. The problem of non-reporting of non-significant findings (the so-called "file cabinet effect") is a problem throughout all areas of science but may be a particular issue for publicized areas such as media violence. 5. Failure to account for "third" variables. variables. Some scholars contend that media violence studies regularly fail to account for other variables such as genetics, personality and exposure to family violence that may explain both why some people become violent and why those same people may choose to expose themselves to violent media. Several recent studies have found that, when factors such as mental health, family environment and personality are controlled, no predictive relationship between either video games or television violence and youth violence remain (Ferguson, San Miguel & Hartley, 2009; Ybarra et al., 2008, Figure 2). 6. Failure to adequately define "aggression." "aggression." Experimental measures of aggression have been questioned by critics (Mussen & Rutherford, 1961; Deselms & Altman, 2003). The main concern of critics has been the issue of the external validity of experimental measures of aggression. The validity of the concept of aggression itself, however, is rarely questioned. Highly detailed taxonomies of different forms of aggression do exist. exist. Whether researchers agree on the particular terminology used to indicate the particular sub-types of aggression (i.e. relational versus social aggression), concepts of aggression are always operationally defined in peer-reviewed journals. However many of these operational definitions definitions of aggression are specifically criticized. criticized. Many experimental measures of aggression are rather questionable (i.e. Mussen & Rutherford, 1961; Berkowitz, 1965; Bushman & Anderson, 2002; Deselms & Altman, 2003). Other studies fail to differentiate between "aggression" aimed at causing harm to another person, and "aggressive play" in which two individuals (usually children) may pretend to engage in aggressive behavior, but do so consensually for the purpose of mutual enjoyment. (Goldstein) 7. Small "effects" sizes. In the research world, the meaning of "statistical significance" can be ambiguous. A measure of effect size can aid in the interpretation of statistical significance. In a meta-analysis of 217 studies by Paik and Comstock (1994), effect sizes for experiments were r = .37 and r = .19 for surveys, which are small to moderate effects. Most of these studies however did not actually measure aggression against another person. Paik

60

Media violence research and Comstock note that when aggression toward another person, and particularly actual violent crime is considered, the relationship between media violence and these outcomes is near zero. Effects can vary according to their size (for example the effects of eating bananas on your mood could very well be "statistically significant" but would be tiny, almost imperceptible, whereas the effect of a death in the immediate family would also be "statistically significant" but obviously much larger). Media violence studies usually produce very small, transient effects that do not translate into large effects in the real world. Media violence researchers often defend this by stating that many medical studies also produce small effects (although as Block and Crain, 2007, note, these researchers may have miscalculated the effect sizes from fr om medical research). 8. Media violence rates are not not correlated with violent crime rates. rates. Ultimately the biggest problem for this body of literature is that for this theory to be true, media violence (which appears to have been consistently and unfailingly on the rise since the 1950s) should be well correlated with violent crime (which has been cycling up and down throughout human history). By discussing only the data from the 1950s through the 1990s, media violence researchers create the illusion that there is a correlation, when in fact there is not. Large spikes in violent crime in the United States occurred without associated media violence spikes during the 1880s (when records were first kept) and 1930s. The homicide rate in the United States has never been higher than during the 1930s. Similarly, this theory fails to explain why violent crime rates (including among juveniles) dramatically fell in the mid 1990s and have stayed low, during a time when media violence has continued to increase, and saw the addition of violent video games. Lastly media violence researchers can not explain why many countries with media violence rates similar to or equal to the U.S. (such as Norway, Canada, Japan, etc.) have much lower violent crime rates. Huesmann & Eron's own cross-national study (which is often cited in support of media violence effects) failed to find a link between television violence and aggressive behavior in most of the countries included in the analysis (including America, and even in studies on American boys). 9. Media violence on TV is a reflection of the level of violence that occurs in the real real world . Many TV programmers argue that their shows just mirror the violence that goes on in the real world. Zev Braun,of CBS, in 1990 argued in a debate on the Violence Bill that, "We live in a violent society. Art imitates modes of life, not the other way around: it would be better for Congress to clean that society than to clean that reflection of society."[7]

Researchers' response to criticisms 1. Regarding instruments used to measure measure aggression, some media researchers argue that better measures measures are often not readily available. Also, measuring "violent criminal behavior" in laboratory studies would clearly be unethical (Bushman & Anderson, 2001). 2. Regarding the inconclusive inconclusive nature of some findings, media researchers researchers often contend that it is the critics who are misinterpreting or selectively reporting studies (Anderson et al., 2003). It may be that both sides of the debate are highlighting separate findings that are most favorable to their own "cause". 3. Regarding "third" variables, media violence researchers researchers acknowledge that other variables variables may play play a role in aggression (Bushman & Anderson, 2001) and that aggression is due to a confluence of variables. These variables are known as "third variables" and if found, would probably be mediator variables (which differ from moderator variables). A mediator variable could 'explain away' media violence effects, whereas a moderator variable cannot. For instance, some scholars contend that trait aggressiveness has been demonstrated to moderate media violence effects (Bushman), although in some studies "trait aggression" does appear to account for any link between media violence exposure and aggression. Other variables have also been found to moderate media violence effects (Bushman & Geen, 1990). Another issue is the way in which experimental studies deal with potential confounding variables. Researchers use random assignment to attempt to neutralize the effects of what commonly are cited as third variables (i.e. gender, trait aggressiveness, preference for violent media). Because experimental designs employ random assignment to conditions, the effect of such attributive variables on experimental results is assumed to be random (not systematic). However, the same can not be said for correlational studies, and failure to control for such variables in correlational studies limits the interpretation of such studies. Often, something as

61


4.

5.

6.

7.

simple as gender proves capable of "mediating" media violence effects. Regarding aggression, aggression, the problem may have less less to do with the definition definition of aggression, but rather how aggression is measured in studies, and how aggression and violent crime are used interchangeably in the public eye. Much of the debate debate on this issue seems to revolve around ambiguity regarding what is considered a "small" effect. Media violence researchers contend that effect sizes noted in media violence effects are similar to those found in some medical research which is considered important by the medical community (Bushman & Anderson, 2001), although medical research may suffer from some of the same interpretational flaws as social science. This argument has been challenged as based on flawed statistics, however (Bloack & Crain, 2007). Block & Crain (2007) recently found that social scientists (Bushman & Anderson, 2001) had been miscalculating some medical effect sizes. The interpretation of effect size in both medical and social science remains in its infancy. More recently, media violence experts have acknowledged that societal media consumption and violent crime rates are not well associated, but claim that this is likely due to other variables that are poorly understood. However, this effect remains poorly explained by current media violence theories, and media violence researchers may need to be more careful not to retreat to an unfalsifiable theory – one that cannot be disproven (Freedman, 2002). Researchers argue that the discrepancy of violent acts seen seen on TV compared compared to that in the real world are huge. One study looked at the frequency of crimes occurring in the real world compared with the frequency of crimes occurring in the following reality-based TV programs: America’s Most Wanted, Cops, Top Cops, FBI, The Untold Story and American Detective, (Oliver, 1994). The types of crimes were divided into two categories, violent crimes and non-violent crimes. 87% of crimes occurring in the real world are non-violent crimes, whereas only 13% of crimes occurring on TV are considered non-violent crimes.[7] However, this discrepancy between media and real-life crimes may arguably dispute rather than support media effects theories.

Media violence and youth violence Several scholars (e.g. Freedman, 2002; Olson, 2004; Savage, 2004) have pointed out that as media content has increased in violence in the past few decades, violent crimes among youth have declined rapidly. In current research it is stated, "The typical American child will view more than 200,000 acts of violence, incluidng more than 16,000 murders before age 18." (Beresin 2010)[8] Although most scholars caution that this decline cannot be attributed to a causal effect, they conclude that this observation argues against causal harmful effects for media violence. A recent long-term outcome study of youth found no long-term relationship between playing violent video games or watching violent television and youth violence or bullying.[9]

Relationship between media violence and minor aggressive behaviors be haviors Given that little evidence links media violence to serious physical aggression, bullying or youth violence,[9] at present most of the debate appears to focus on whether media violence may have an impact on more minor forms of aggressiveness. At present, no consensus has been reached on this issue. For example in 1974 the US Surgeon General testified to congress that "the overwhelming consensus and the unanimous Scientific Advisory Committee’s report indicates that televised violence, indeed, does have an adverse effect on certain members of our society."[10] However, by 2001, the US Surgeon General's office, The Department of Health and Human Services had largely reversed itself, relegating media violence to only a minor role and noting many serious limitations in the research.[11] A study was done where a group of 96 college students participated in a short-term study where the students watched nine different videos of violent acts and nine different videos of comedy acts. After, the students were asked how they felt/their moods. The views felt less sympathetic over the course of the study and were being "desensitized" to the violence.[12] In the same study the participants were asked if they were involved in any real-life aggression? The results showed that there were no apparent extreme acts of violence noted.(Fanti 2009)[13]

62


Evolution of Media Outlets and Adolescents What people may not think of when they hear media violence is the internet. We tend to forget forget that technology and means of communication and is expanding everyday. everyday. The internet is a widely used resource, especially especially for adolescents. They have have internet on cell phones or their computer at home and at school that most like is available to use everyday. What What people people tend to forget is that with the use of the internet can lead to the the type of violence that is not talked about a lot. There is violence to oneself from what one sees about him or herself over media/communications sites such as www.facebook.com or www.twitter.com. The aggression does not just include the result of an adolescent watch a violent act through media but being prone to other means of violence through electronic means. This is also known as Electronic Aggression which can be defined as any type of harassment[14] or bullying (teasing, telling lies, making fun of someone, making rude or mean comments, spreading rumors, or making threatening or aggressive comments) that occurs through e-mail, a chat room, instant messaging, a website (including blogs), text messaging, or videos or pictures posted on websites or sent through cell phones.)

External links • • • • • • • •

Cher Cheryl yl Ols Olson on's 's webweb-si site te [15] Free Free Expr Express ession ion Policy Policy Projec Projectt [16] Webs Websit itee of of Bra Bradd Bus Bushm hman an [17] Info on on court court cases cases critica criticall of media media violence violence researc researchh [18] Websit Websitee of Christ Christoph opher er J.J. Fergu Ferguson son [19] Webs Websit itee of Cra Craig ig And Ander erso sonn [20] Youth Violence: Violence: A Report Report of the the Surgeon Surgeon General General [21] Entertainme Entertainment nt Software Software Indust Industry's ry's info info on video video game game effects effects [22]

Footnotes [1] Anderson, C. A.; Berkowitz, Berkowitz, L.; Donnerstein, E.; Huesmann, Huesmann, L. R.; Johnson, J. D.; Linz, Linz, D.; Malamuth, N. M.; Wartella, E. (2003). "The "The Science in the Public Interest Interest 4 (3): 81. doi:10.1111/j.1529-1006.2 influence of media violence on youth". Psychological Science doi:10.1111/j.1529-1006.2003.pspi_14 003.pspi_1433.x. 33.x. [2] Weaver, Erin (2007). (2007). "Based on a True Story: The Use of Truth on on the Didactic Stage" (http:/ / hdl.handle. hdl. handle.net/ net/ 1974/ 1974/ 1062). 1062). Inquiry@Queen s (1): 1 – 5. 5. . [3] Sparks, G.G., Sparks, Sparks, E. A & Sparks, Sparks, C.W. (2008) Media Violence. In J. Bryant (Ed), Media Effects: Advances Advances in Theory and and Research(3rd ed., pp. 269 – 286) 286) [4] name=Ferguson name=Ferguson & Dyck, 2012>Ferguson, 2012>Ferguson, Christopher Christopher (2012). "Paradigm change in aggression aggression research: The time has come come to retire the General Aggression Model" (http:/ / www.tamiu. www.tamiu.edu/ edu/ ~cferguson/ ~cferguson/ Paradigm Paradigm Change.pdf). Change. pdf). Aggression and 228. and Violence Behavior Behavior (17): 220 – 228. . [5] David Gauntlett (2005), Moving Moving Experiences, second second edition: Media Effects and Beyond (http:/ (http:/ / www.theory. www.theory.org. org.uk/ uk/ david/ david/ book7.htm), book7. htm), London: John Libbey and its effect on aggression: aggression: Assessing the the scientific evidence. Toronto: University of Toronto [6] Freedman, Freedman, Jonathan Jonathan L. L. (2002). (2002). Media violence and Press. ISBN 978-0-8020-3553-0 978-0-8020-3553-0 [7] Anderson, C. A. & Bushman, Bushman, B. J. (2001) Media Media Violence and the American Public: Scientific Facts Versus Versus Media Misinformation. ’

American Psychologist Psychologist

[8] Beresin, Eugene. violence_on_children_and violence_on_children_and_adolescents_o _adolescents_opportunities_for_ pportunities_for_clinical_intervention clinical_interventionss "The Impact of Media Violence on Children and Adolescents: Opportunities for Clinical Interventions" (http:/ / www.aacap. www.aacap.org/ org/ cs/ cs/ root/ root/ developmentor/ developmentor/ the_impact_of_media_). the_impact_of_media_). American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. violence_on_children_and_ado violence_on_children_and_adolescents_opportu lescents_opportunities_for_clinical_ nities_for_clinical_interventions. interventions. [9] "Video Games and Youth Youth Violence: A Prospective Prospective Analysis in Adolescents", Adolescents", Christopher Christopher J. Ferguson, Journal of Youth Youth and Adolescence Adolescence [10] American American Psycholo Psychological gical Society Society (http:/ (http:/ / www.psychologicalscience. www.psychologicalscience.org/ org/ pdf/ pdf/ pspi/ pspi/ pspi43.pdf) pspi43.pdf) [11] Departmen Departmentt of Health And Human Services Services (http:/ (http:/ / www.surgeongeneral. www.surgeongeneral.gov/ gov/ library/ library/ youthviolence/ youthviolence/ report.html) report.html) [12] [12] (htt (http: p:/ / / web.ebscohost. web.ebscohost.com/ com/ ehost/ ehost/ pdfviewer/ pdfviewer/ pdfviewer?sid=ff3fe166-b536-4ac1-b8 pdfviewer?sid=ff3fe166-b536-4ac1-b8fe-1f2206068aa2 fe-1f2206068aa2@sessionmgr11 @sessionmgr113& 3&vid=2& vid=2& hid=106) [13] Fanti, Kostas (2009). (2009). "Desensitization "Desensitization To Media Violence Violence Over A Short Short Period of Time" Time" (http:/ / web.ebscohost. web.ebscohost.com/ com/ ehost/ ehost/ pdfviewer/ pdfviewer/ Behavior 35: 179-187. . Retrieved pdfviewer?sid=ff3fe166-b536-4ac1-b8 pdfviewer?sid=ff3fe166-b536-4ac1-b8fe-1f2206068aa2 fe-1f2206068aa2@sessionmgr113 @sessionmgr113& & vid=2&hid=106). vid=2& hid=106). Aggressive Behavior 11/07/12.

63

Media violence research [14] David-Ferdon, Corrine. /pdf/Electronic_Aggression_Researcher_Brief-a.pdf "Electronic Media and Youth Violence" (http:/ / www.cdc. gov/ violenceprevention). Centers For Disease Control. /pdf/Electronic_Aggression_Researcher_Brief-a.pdf. Retrieved 11/7/12. [15] http:/ / www.ckolson.com/ [16] http:/ / www.fepproject.org/ [17] http:/ / www-personal.umich.edu/ ~bbushman/ [18] http:/ / www.theesa.com/ archives/ EF%20Courts%20and%20Rulings%20Final%20--%20_JAN%202007_.pdf [19] http:/ / www.tamiu.edu/ ~cferguson [20] http:/ / anderson.socialpsychology.org/ [21] http:/ / www.surgeongeneral.gov/ library/ youthviolence/ chapter4/ appendix4bsec2.html#MajorBehavioralMedia/ [22] http:/ / www.theesa.com/

References • Anderson, C. A. & Bushman, B. J. (2001) Media Violence and the American Public: Scientific Facts Versus Media Misinformation. American Psychologist • Anderson, C., & Dill, K. (2000). Video games and aggressive thoughts, feelings and behavior in the laboratory and in life (http:/ / www.apa.org/ journals/ features/ psp784772.pdf). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 772 – 790. • Bargh, J. (2005). Bypassing the will: Towards demystifying the nonconscious control of social behavior. In R. Hassin, J. Uleman and J. Bargh (Eds.) The New Unconscious. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-514995-1 • Bargh, J., Chen, M., & Burrows, L. (1996). " Automaticity of Social Behavior: Direct Effects of Trait Construct and Stereotype Activation on Action (http:/ / www.psych.uiuc.edu/ ~broberts/ Bargh et al., 1996.pdf)". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71 (2). • Bartholow, B. D.; Bushman, B. J.; Sestir, M. A. (2006). "Chronic violent video game exposure and desensitization to violence: Behavioral and event-related brain potential data". Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 42 (4): 532. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2005.08.006. • Berkowitz, L. (1965). "Some Aspects of Observed Aggression". Journal of personality and social psychology 12 (3): 359 – 369. doi:10.1037/h0022221. PMID 14333308. • Block, J. J.; Crain, B. R. (2007). "Omissions and errors in "Media violence and the American public."". American Psychologist 62 (3): 252 – 253; discussion 253 – 4. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.62.3.252. PMID 17469907. • Bushman, Brad & Anderson, C. (2001). Media violence and the American public: Scientific fact versus media misinformation (http:/ / www.psychology.iastate.edu/ faculty/ caa/ abstracts/ 2000-2004/ 01BA.ap.pdf). American Psychologist, 56(6 – 7), pp. 477 – 489. • Bushman, Brad, & Anderson, C. (2002). Violent video games and hostile expectations: A test of the General Aggression Model (http:/ / www.psychology.iastate.edu/ faculty/ caa/ abstracts/ 2000-2004/ 02BApspb.pdf). Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1679 – 1686. • Beresin, E. (2010). The impact of media violence on children and adolescents: Opportunities for clinical interventions. Retrieved from http:/ / www.aacap.org/ cs/ root/ developmentor/ the_impact_of_media_ violence_on_children_and_adolescents_opportunities_for_clinical_interventions • Bryce, J., & Kaye, L. K. (2011). Computer and videogames. In G. Brewer (Ed.), Media Psychology (pp. 101 – 114). London: Palgrave Macmillan • Comstock, G. & Scharrer, E. (2003). Meta-analyzing the controversy over television violence and aggression. In D. Gentile (Ed.) Media Violence and Children, pp. 205 – 226. ISBN 978-0-275-97956-0 • David-Ferdon C., Hertz MF Electronic Media and Youth Violence: A CDC Issue Brief for Researchers. Atlanta (GA): Centers for Disease Control; 2009. Retrieved from http:/ / www.cdc.gov/ violenceprevention /pdf/Electronic_Aggression_Researcher_Brief-a.pdf • Deselms, J. L.; Altman, J. D. (2003). "Immediate and Prolonged Effects of Videogame Violence". Journal of Applied Social Psychology 33 (8): 1553. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2003.tb01962.x. "This study examined the relationship between playing violent videogames and sensitivity to aggressive acts."

64

Media violence research • Elizabeth, J. E., & Morton, N. (2008). Exposure to media violence and young children with and without disabilities: Powerful opportunities for family-professional partnerships. Early Childhood Education Journal, 36(2), 105-112. doi: http:/ / dx.doi.org/ 10.1007/ s10643-008-0276-x • Fedorov, Alexander (2010). Children and Media Violence: Comparative Analysis (http:/ / www.amazon.com/ dp/ 383832580X)LAP Lambert Academic Publishing, 164 p. • Ferguson, C. J.; Kilburn, J. (2009). "The Public Health Risks of Media Violence: A Meta-Analytic Review". The / Journal of Pediatrics 154 (5): 759 – 763. doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2008.11.033. PMID 19230901. Available at: http:/ www.tamiu.edu/ ~cferguson/ MVJPED.pdf • Fanti, K. A., Vanman, E., Henrich, C. C., & Avraamides, M. N. (2009). Desensitization to media violence over a short period of time. Aggressive Behavior, 35(2), 179-187. doi:10.1002/ab.20295 • Ferguson, C., Rueda, S., Cruz, A., Ferguson, D., Fritz, S., & Smith, S. (2008). Violent video games and aggression: Causal relationship or byproduct of family violence and intrinsic violence motivation? Criminal / www.tamiu.edu/ ~cferguson/ CJBGames.pdf Justice and Behavior Available at: http:/ • Ferguson, C. J. San Miguel, C., & Hartley, R. D. (2009). A multivariate analysis of youth violence and aggression: The influence of family, peers, depression and media violence. Journal of Pediatrics, 155(6), 904 – 908. Available at: http:/ / www.tamiu.edu/ ~cferguson/ LYOJPed.pdf • Freedman, Jonathan L. (2002). Media violence and its effect on aggression.: Assessing the scientific evidence. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. ISBN 978-0-8020-3553-0 • Freedman, J. Evaluating the Research on Violent Video Games (http:/ / culturalpolicy.uchicago.edu/ conf2001/ papers/ freedman.html). • Hare, Robert D. (1993). Without Conscience : The Disturbing World of the Psychopaths Among Us . Pocket Books. ISBN 978-0-671-73261-5. OCLC 28550146. • Huesmann, L.R., & Eron, L. (1986). Television and the aggressive child: A cross-national comparison. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates ISBN 978-0-89859-754-7 • Huesmann, L.R, Moise, J.F., & Podolski, C.L. (1997). The effects of media violence on the development of antisocial behavior. In D. Stoff, J. Breiling & Master (Eds.) Handbook of Antisocial Behavior (pp. 181 – 193). New York: John Wiley & Sons ISBN 978-0-471-12452-8 • Hurely, S. " Bypassing Conscious Control: Media violence, unconscious intention, and freedom of speech (http:/ / eis.bris.ac.uk/ ~plajb/ hurley_papers/ bypasssing_conscious_control.doc)". from Does Consciousness Cause Behavior? An Investigation of the Nature of Volition, March 2006 MIT Press (ISBN 978-0-262-16237-1) • Jones, Gerard (2002). Killing monsters: why children need fantasy, super heroes and make-believe violence. New York : Basic Books ISBN 978-0-465-03696-7 • Kaye, L. K., & Bryce, J. (2012). Putting the fun factor into gaming: The influence of social contexts on experiences of playing videogames (http:/ / www.ijis.net/ ijis7_1/ ijis7_1_kaye_and_bryce.pdf). International Journal of Internet Science, 7 (1), 23-37 • The Lancet. (2008). Is exposure to media violence a public health risk? The Lancet, 371, 1137. • Larsson, H.; Andershed, H.; Lichtenstein, P. (2006). "A Genetic Factor Explains Most of the Variation in the Psychopathic Personality". Journal of Abnormal Psychology 115 (2): 221 – 230. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.115.2.221. PMID 16737387. • Mussen, P.; Rutherford, E. (1961). "Effects of aggressive cartoons on children's aggressive play". Journal of abnormal and social psychology 62: 461 – 464. PMID 13727111. • Olson, C. (2004). Media Violence Research and Youth Violence Data: Why Do They Conflict? (http:/ / ap. psychiatryonline.org/ cgi/ content/ full/ 28/ 2/ 144) Academic Psychiatry, 28, 144 – 150. • Paik, H. & Comstock, G. (1994). The effects of television violence on antisocial behavior: A meta-analysis (http:/ / crx.sagepub.com/ cgi/ content/ abstract/ 21/ 4/ 516). Communication Research, 21 (4), 516 – 546. • Pinker, Steven (2002) The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature . New York, NY: Penguin (ISBN 0-670-03151-8)

65

Media violence research • Prinz, W. (1990). A common coding approach to perception and action. In O. Neumann and W. Prinz (Eds.) Relations between perception and action. Berlin: Springer. • Prinz, W. (2005). An Ideomotor Approach to Imitation. In Hurely, S. & N. Chater (Eds.) Perspectives on Imitation: From Neuroscience to Social Science (vol. 1). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ISBN 978-1-4237-5020-8 • Schechter, D. S.; Gross, A.; Willheim, E.; McCaw, J.; Turner, J. B.; Myers, M. M.; Zeanah, C. H.; Gleason, M. M. (2009). "Is maternal PTSD associated with greater exposure of very young children to violent media?". Journal of Traumatic Stress 22 (6): 658 – 662. doi:10.1002/jts.20472. PMC 2798921. PMID 19924819. • Slater, M. D. (2003). "Alienation, Aggression, and Sensation Seeking as Predictors of Adolescent Use of Violent Film, Computer, and Website Content". Journal of Communication 53: 105. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2003.tb03008.x. • Sparks, G.G., Sparks, E. A & Sparks, C.W. (2008) Media Violence. In J. Bryant (Ed), Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research (3rd ed., pp. 269 – 286) • Tedeschi, J. T.; Quigley, B. M. (1996). "Limitations of laboratory paradigms for studying aggression". Aggression and Violent Behavior 1 (2): 163. doi:10.1016/1359-1789(95)00014-3. • Vidal, M. Á.; Clemente, M.; Espinosa, P. (2003). "Types of media violence and degree of acceptance in under-18s". Aggressive Behavior 29 (5): 381. doi:10.1002/ab.10037. • Ybarra, M., Diener-West, M., Markow, D., Leaf, P., Hamburger, M., & Boxer, P. (2008). Linkages between internet and other media violence with seriously violent behavior by youth. Pediatrics, 122(5), 929 – 937. • Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2002). The effects of media violence on society. (Vol. 295, pp. 2377-2379). DOI: www.sciencemag.org • Cullotta, K. A. (2012, August 01). Media violence: Shielding kids is harder than ever. Chicago Tribune. Retrieved from http:/ / articles.chicagotribune.com/ • (2001). Media violence. Pediatrics: Official journal of the american academy of pediatrics, 108(5), 1222-1224. Retrieved from http:/ / pediatrics.aappublications.org/ content/ 108/ 5/ 1222.full.html • David-Ferdon, C., & Hertz, M. F. (2009). Electronic media and youth violence: A cdc issue brief for researchers, 4-6. • Strayhorn, J. (2001). Media violence. Retrieved from http:/ / www.psyskills.com/ mediaviolence.htm • The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. (2003). Tv violence. Key facts, Retrieved from www.kff.org

66

Metallic Metals Act

67

Metallic Metals Act The Metallic Metals Act is a non-existent piece of proposed legislation that featured prominently in an experiment conducted in 1947 by Sam Gill.

The Experiment According to an article in Tide magazine (14 March 1947), Gill asked a number of persons the following question: Which of the following statements most closely coincides with your opinion of the Metallic

Metals Act?

• It would be a good move on the part of the US. • It would be a good thing, but should be left to the individual states • It’s all right for foreign countries, but should not be required here. • It is of no value at all Of those asked, 70% expressed an opinion despite the fact that no such act existed and, therefore, the respondents could have no actual knowledge.[1] The responses (for those 70%) were: • It would be a good move on the part of the US. (21.4%) • It would be a good thing, but should be left to the individual states (58.6%) • It’s all right for foreign countries, but should not be required here. (15.7%) • It is of no value at all (4.3%)[2]

Criticism This study may be criticized on a number of points. Reportedly theTide article does not disclose the study's sample size nor the method by which participants were selected.[3] The study is cited as an example of bias induced by forced choice.[4] The study, and the Act, are nonetheless referred to in textbooks and other works, some of whom are listed in the references below. An element of hoaxing is common in psychological studies, but questions about the methodology of Gill's study and its publication in a nonscientific venue give rise to the possibility that not only the Act, but the study itself, may have had an element of hoax, however harmless. The truth may be difficult to ascertain.

References [1] The Psychology of Judgment and Decision Making by Scott Plous, ISBN 0-07-050477-6, p. 55 [2] Tainted Truth: The Manipulation of Fact In America , by Cynthia Crossnen, ISBN 0-684-81556-7, p. 24 [3] Questions and Answers in Attitude Surveys by Howard Schuman and Stanley Presser, ISBN 0-7619-0359-3, page 147 [4] Friedman, Hershey H. and Amoo, Taiwo (Winter, 1999). "Rating the Rating Scales" (http:/ / academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/ economic/ friedman/ rateratingscales.htm). Journal of Marketing Management. . Retrieved August 10, 2007.

MIDAS Trial

MIDAS Trial The MIDAS Trial is a randomized controlled trial in Manchester, England using Motivational Interventions for Drugs & Alcohol misuse in Schizophrenia. It is led by Professor Christine Barrowclough and operates in both Manchester and London. The trial is, along with the Danish CapOpus trial, among the only trials aimed at this particular group of comorbid substance abusers with schizophrenia.

External links • MIDAS Trial website [1]

References [1] http:/ / www.midastrial.ac.uk/

Milgram experiment The Milgram experiment on obedience to authority figures was a series of notable social psychology experiments conducted by Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram, which measured the willingness of study participants to obey an authority figure who instructed them to perform acts that conflicted with their personal conscience. Milgram first described his research in 1963 in an article published in the Journal of Abnormal and Social [1] Psychology, and later discussed his findings in greater depth in his 1974 book, Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View. [2] The experiments began in July 1961, three months after the start of the trial of German Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann in Jerusalem. Milgram devised his psychological study to answer the question: "Was it that Eichmann and his accomplices in the Holocaust had mutual intent, in at least with regard to the goals of the Holocaust?" In other words, "Was there a mutual sense of morality among those involved?" Milgram's testing suggested that The experimenter (E) orders the teacher (T), the subject it could have been that the millions of accomplices were merely of the experiment, to give what the latter believes are painful electric shocks to a learner (L), who is actually following orders, despite violating their deepest moral beliefs. The an actor and confederate. The subject believes that f or experiments have been repeated many times, with consistent each wrong answer, the learner was receiving actual results within societies, but different percentages across the electric shocks, though in reality there were no such [3] globe. The experiments were also controversial, and considered punishments. Being separated from the subject, the confederate set up a tape recorder integrated with the by some scientists to be unethical and physically or electro-shock generator, which played pre-recorded psychologically abusive. Psychologist Diana Baumrind considered [1] sounds for each shock level. the experiment, "harmful because it may cause permanent psychological damage and cause people to be less trusting in the future." [4] Such criticism motivated more thorough review boards and committee reviews for working with human subjects.

68

Milgram experiment

69

The experiment The volunteer subject was given the role of teacher, and the confederate, the role of learner. The participants drew slips of paper to determine their roles, but unknown to the subject, both slips said "teacher", and the actor claimed to have the slip that read "learner", thus guaranteeing that the participant would always be the "teacher". At this point, the "teacher" and "learner" were separated into different rooms where they could communicate but not see each other. In one version of the experiment, the confederate was sure to mention to the participant that he had a heart condition.[1] The "teacher" was given an electric shock from the electro-shock generator as a sample of the shock that the "learner" would supposedly receive during the experiment. The "teacher" was then given a list of word pairs which he was to teach the learner. The teacher began by reading the list of word pairs to the learner. The teacher would then read the first word of each pair and read four possible answers. The learner would press a button to indicate his response. If the answer was incorrect, the teacher would administer a shock to the learner, with the voltage increasing in 15-volt increments for each wrong answer. If correct, the teacher would read the next word pair.[1]

Milgram Experiment advertisement

The subjects believed that for each wrong answer, the learner was receiving actual shocks. In reality, there were no shocks. After the confederate was separated from the subject, the confederate set up a tape recorder integrated with the electro-shock generator, which played pre-recorded sounds for each shock level. After a number of voltage level increases, the actor started to bang on the wall that separated him from the subject. After several times banging on the wall and complaining about his heart condition, all responses by the learner would cease.[1] At this point, many people indicated their desire to stop the experiment and check on the learner. Some test subjects paused at 135 volts and began to question the purpose of the experiment. Most continued after being assured that they would not be held responsible. A few subjects began to laugh nervously or exhibit other signs of extreme stress once they heard the screams of pain coming from the learner.[1] If at any time the subject indicated his desire to halt the experiment, he was given a succession of verbal prods by the experimenter, in this order:[1] 1. Please continue. 2. The experiment requires that you continue. 3. It is absolutely essential that you continue. 4. You have no other choice, you must go on. If the subject still wished to stop after all four successive verbal prods, the experiment was halted. Otherwise, it was halted after the subject had given the maximum 450-volt shock three times in succession.[1] The experimenter also gave special prods if the teacher made specific comments. If the teacher asked whether the learner might suffer permanent physical harm, the experimenter replied, "Although the shocks may be painful, there

Milgram experiment is no permanent tissue damage, so please go on". If the teacher said that the learner clearly wants to stop, the experimenter replied, "Whether the learner likes it or not, you must go on until he has learned all the word pairs correctly, so please go on".

Results Before conducting the experiment, Milgram polled fourteen Yale University senior-year psychology majors to predict the behavior of 100 hypothetical teachers. All of the poll respondents believed that only a very small fraction of teachers (the range was from zero to 3 out of 100, with an average of 1.2) would be prepared to inflict the maximum voltage. Milgram also informally polled his colleagues and found that they, too, believed very few subjects would progress beyond a very strong shock.[1] Milgram also polled forty psychiatrists from a medical school and they believed that by the tenth shock, when the victim demands to be free, most subjects would stop the experiment. They predicted that by the 300 volt shock, when the victim refuses to answer, only 3.73 percent of the subjects would still continue and they believed that "only a little over one-tenth of one per cent of the subjects would administer the highest shock on the board."[5] In Milgram's first set of experiments, 65 percent (26 of 40)[1] of experiment participants administered the experiment's final massive 450-volt shock, though many were very uncomfortable doing so; at some point, every participant paused and questioned the experiment; some said they would refund the money they were paid for participating in the experiment. Throughout the experiment, subjects displayed varying degrees of tension and stress. Subjects were sweating, trembling, stuttering, biting their lips, groaning, digging their fingernails into their skin, and some were even having nervous laughing fits or seizures.[1] Milgram summarized the experiment in his 1974 article, "The Perils of Obedience", writing: The legal and philosophic aspects of obedience are of enormous importance, but they say very little about how most people behave in concrete situations. I set up a simple experiment at Yale University to test how much pain an ordinary citizen would inflict on another person simply because he was ordered to by an experimental scientist. Stark authority was pitted against the subjects' [participants'] strongest moral imperatives against hurting others, and, with the subjects' [participants'] ears ringing with the screams of the victims, authority won more often than not. The extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority constitutes the chief finding of the study and the fact most urgently demanding explanation. Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority.[6] The original Simulated Shock Generator and Event Recorder, or shock box, is located in the Archives of the History of American Psychology. Later, Prof. Milgram and other psychologists performed variations of the experiment throughout the world, with similar results.[7] Milgram later investigated the effect of the experiment's locale on obedience levels by holding an experiment in an unregistered, backstreet office in a bustling city, as opposed to at Yale, a respectable university. The level of obedience, "although somewhat reduced, was not significantly lower." What made more of a difference was the proximity of the "learner" and the experimenter. There were also variations tested involving groups. Dr. Thomas Blass of the University of Maryland, Baltimore County performed a meta-analysis on the results of repeated performances of the experiment. He found that the percentage of participants who are prepared to inflict fatal voltages remains remarkably constant, 61 – 66 percent, regardless of time or place.[8][9] There is a little-known coda to the Milgram Experiment, reported by Philip Zimbardo: none of the participants who refused to administer the final shocks insisted that the experiment itself be terminated, nor left the room to check the

70

Milgram experiment health of the victim without requesting permission to leave, as per Milgram's notes and recollections, when Zimbardo asked him about that point.[10] Milgram created a documentary film titled Obedience showing the experiment and its results. He also produced a series of five social psychology films, some of which dealt with his experiments.[11]

Ethics The Milgram Shock Experiment raised questions about the research ethics of scientific experimentation because of the extreme emotional stress and inflicted insight suffered by the participants. In Milgram's defense, 84 percent of former participants surveyed later said they were "glad" or "very glad" to have participated, 15 percent chose neutral responses (92% of all former participants responding).[12] Many later wrote expressing thanks. Milgram repeatedly received offers of assistance and requests to join his staff from former participants. Six years later (at the height of the Vietnam War), one of the participants in the experiment sent correspondence to Milgram, explaining why he was glad to have participated despite the stress: While I was a subject in 1964, though I believed that I was hurting someone, I was totally unaware of why I was doing so. Few people ever realize when they are acting according to their own beliefs and when they are meekly submitting to authority… To permit myself to be drafted with the understanding that I am submitting to authority's demand to do something very wrong would make me frightened of myself … I am fully prepared to go to jail if I am not granted Conscientious Objector status. Indeed, it is the only course I could take to be faithful to what I believe. My only hope is that members of my board act equally according to their conscience…[13][14] Milgram argued that the ethical criticism provoked by his experiments was because his findings were disturbing and revealed unwelcome truths about human nature. Others have argued that the ethical debate has diverted attention from more serious problems with the experiment's methodology. Author Gina Perry found an unpublished paper in Milgram's archives that shows Milgram's own concern with how believable the experimental set-up was to subjects involved. Milgram's unpublished analysis indicated that many subjects suspected that the experiment was a hoax, a finding that casts doubt on the veracity of his results. In the journal Jewish Currents, Joseph Dimow, a participant in the 1961 experiment at Yale University, wrote about his early withdrawal as a "teacher," suspicious "that the whole experiment was designed to see if ordinary Americans would obey immoral orders, as many Germans had done during the Nazi period."[15]

Interpretations Professor Milgram elaborated two theories • The The fir firsst is is the the theory of conformism , based on Solomon Asch conformity experiments, describing the fundamental relationship between the group of reference and the individual person. A subject who has neither ability nor expertise to make decisions, especially in a crisis, will leave decision making to the group and its hierarchy. The group is the person's behavioral model. • The The seco second nd is the the agentic state theory , wherein, per Milgram, "the essence of obedience consists in the fact that a person comes to view themselves as the instrument for carrying out another person's wishes, and they therefore no longer see themselves as responsible for their actions. Once this critical shift of viewpoint has occurred in the person, all of the essential features of obedience follow".[16]

71

Milgram experiment Alternative interpretations

In his book Irrational Exuberance, Yale Finance Professor Robert Shiller argues that other factors might be partially able to explain the Milgram Experiments: [People] have learned that when experts tell them something is all right, it probably is, even if it does not seem so. (In fact, it is worth noting that in this case the experimenter was indeed correct: it was all right to continue giving the 'shocks' — even though most of the subjects did not suspect the reason.)[17] In a 2006 experiment, a computerized avatar was used in place of the learner receiving electrical shocks. Although the participants administering the shocks were aware that the learner was unreal, the experimenters reported that participants responded to the situation physiologically "as if it were real."[18]

Replications and variations Milgram's variations

In Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View (1974), Milgram describes 19 variations of his experiment, some of which had not been previously reported. Several experiments varied the immediacy of the teacher and learner. Generally, when the victim's physical immediacy was increased, the participant's compliance decreased. The participant's compliance also decreased when the authority's physical immediacy decreased (Experiments 1 – 4). 4). For example, in Experiment 2, where participants received telephonic instructions from the experimenter, compliance decreased to 21 percent. Interestingly, some participants deceived the experimenter by pretending to continue the experiment. In the variation where the "learner's" physical immediacy was closest, where participants had to physically hold the "learner's" arm onto a shock plate, compliance decreased. Under that condition, 30 percent of participants completed the experiment. In Experiment 8, women were the participants; previously, all participants had been men. Obedience did not significantly differ, though the women communicated experiencing higher levels of stress. Experiment 10 took place in a modest office in Bridgeport, Connecticut, purporting to be the commercial entity "Research Associates of Bridgeport" without apparent connection to Yale University, to eliminate the university's prestige as a possible factor influencing the participants' behavior. In those conditions, obedience dropped to 47.5 percent, though the difference was not statistically significant. Milgram also combined the effect of authority with that of conformity. In those experiments, the participant was joined by one or two additional "teachers" (also actors, like the "learner"). The behavior of the participants' peers strongly affected the results. In Experiment 17, when two additional teachers refused to comply, only 4 of 40 participants continued in the experiment. In Experiment 18, the participant performed a subsidiary task (reading the questions via microphone or recording the learner's answers) with another "teacher" who complied fully. In that variation, 37 of 40 continued with the experiment.[19]

72

Milgram experiment

73

Replications

Around the time of the release of Obedience to Authority (i.e. 1973-1974), a version of the experiment was conducted at La Trobe university in Australia. As reported by Gina Perry in Behind the Shock [20] Machine , some of the participants experienced long-lasting psychological effects, possibly due to the lack of proper debriefing by the experimentor.[21] In 2002 the British artist Rod Dickinson created The Milgram Re-enactment , an exact reconstruction of parts of the original experiment, including the rooms used, lighting and uniforms. An audience watched the four-hour performance through one-way glass windows.[22][23] A video of this performance was first shown at the CCA Gallery in Glasgow in 2002.

A virtual replication of the experiment, with an avatar serving as the learner.

A partial replication of the Milgram experiment was conducted by British psychological illusionist Derren Brown and broadcast on Channel 4 in the UK in The Heist (2006).[24] Another partial replication of the Milgram experiment was conducted by Jerry M. Burger in 2006 and broadcast on the Primetime series Basic Instincts. Burger noted that, "current standards for the ethical treatment of participants clearly place Milgram’s studies out of bounds." In 2009 Burger was able to receive approval from the institutional review board by modifying several of the experimental protocols.[25] Burger found obedience rates virtually identical to what Milgram found in 1961 – 1962, 1962, even while meeting current ethical regulations of informing participants. In addition, half the replication participants were female, and their rate of obedience was virtually identical to that of the male participants. Burger also included a condition in which participants first saw another participant refuse to continue. However, participants in this condition obeyed at the same rate as participants in the base condition.[26] The experiment was again repeated as part of the BBC documentary How Violent Are You? [27] first shown in May 2009 as part of the long running Horizon series. Of the 12 participants, only 3 refused to continue to the end of the experiment. In the 2010 French documentary, Le Jeu de la Mort (The Game of Death) , researchers recreated the Milgram experiment with an added critique of reality television by presenting the scenario as a game show pilot. Volunteers were given €40 and told they would not win any money from the game, as this was only a trial. Only 16 of 80 "contestants" (teachers) chose to end the game before delivering the highest voltage punishment.[28][29] The experiment was performed on the April 25th, 2010 episode of Dateline Dateline NBC . The Discovery Channel aired the "How Evil are You" segment of Curiosity which aired on October 30, 2011. The episode was hosted by Eli Roth who got similar results to the original Milgram experiment.[30] Due to increasingly widespread knowledge of the experiment, recent replications of Milgram's procedure had to ensure that the participants were not previously aware of it. Other variations

Charles Sheridan and Richard King hypothesized that some of Milgram's subjects may have suspected that the victim was faking, so they repeated the experiment with a real victim: a "cute, fluffy puppy" who was given real, albeit harmless, electric shocks. They found similar findings to Milgram: half of the male subjects and all of the females obeyed to the end. Many subjects showed high levels of distress during the experiment and some openly wept. In addition, Sheridan and King found that the duration for which the shock button was pressed decreased as the shocks got higher, meaning that for higher shock levels, subjects showed more hesitance towards delivering the shocks.[31][32][33]

Milgram experiment

Media depictions •

Obedience is a black-and-white film of the experiment, shot by Milgram himself. It is distributed by Alexander

•

was a 1975 CBS television film about the experiment, featuring William Shatner, Ossie Davis, and John Travolta.[9][35] I as in Icarus is a 1979 French conspiracy thriller with Yves Montand as an attorney investigating the assassination of the President. The movie is inspired by the Kennedy assassination and the subsequent Warren Commission investigation. Digging into the psychology of the Lee Harvey Oswald type character, the attorney finds out the "decoy shooter" participated in the Milgram experiment. The ongoing experiment is presented to the unsuspecting attorney. [36] Atrocity is a 2005 film re-enactment of the Milgram Experiment. The Human Behavior Experiments is a 2006 documentary by Alex Gibney about major experiments in social psychology, shown along with modern incidents highlighting the principles discussed. Along with Stanley Milgram's study in obedience, the documentary shows the 'diffusion of responsibility' study of John Darley and Bibb Latané and the Stanford Prison Experiment of Philip Zimbardo. Chip Kidd's 2008 novel The Learners is about the Milgram experiment, and features Stanley Milgram as a character. The Milgram Experiment is a 2009 film by the Brothers Gibbs which chronicles the story of Stanley Milgram's experiments. "Authority", an episode of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit , features Merrit Rook, a suspect played by Robin Williams, who employs the strip search prank call scam, identifying himself as "Detective Milgram". He later reenacts a version of the Milgram experiment on Det. Elliot Stabler by ordering him to administer electric shocks to Det. Olivia Benson, whom Rook has bound and is thus helpless. The 2010 film Zenith references and dramatically depicts the Milgram experiment The track "We Do What We're Told (Milgram's 37)" on Peter Gabriel's album So is a reference to Milgram's Experiment 18, in which 37 of 40 people were prepared to administer the highest level of shock. The Dar Williams song "Buzzer" is about the experiment. "I'm feeling sorry for this guy that I pressed to shock / He gets the answers wrong I have to up the watts / And he begged me to stop but they told me to go / I pressed the buzzer." Episode 114 of the Howie Mandel show Howie Do It repeated the experiment with a single pair of subjects using the premise of a Japanese game show. The second scene in the 1984 film Ghostbusters [37] has Dr. Venkman shocking a human test subject during an Extrasensory perception experiment. Albeit, one must take into account that Dr. Venkman was shocking only the male test subject as a way to flirt with the attractive female test subject. A Derren Brown special named "The Heist" repeated the Milgram experiment to test whether the participants will take part in a staged heist afterwards.[38] The Discovery Channel's Curiosity TV series featured an episode where Eli Roth recreated the experiment asking the question, "50 years later, have we changed?" Foolin Around is a 1980 movie starting Gary Busey and Annette O'Toole, which uses a Milgram experiment parody in a comedic scene.

•

• •

• • •

• • •

• •

• • •

Street Press.[34]

The Tenth Level

74

Milgram experiment

Notes [1] Milgram, Stanley (1963). "Behavioral Study of Obedience" (http:/ / content.apa.org/ journals/ abn/ 67/ 4/ 371). Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 67 (4): 371 – 8. doi:10.1037/h0040525. PMID 14049516. . as PDF. (http:/ / www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/ classics1981/ A1981LC33300001. pdf) [2] Milgram, Stanley (1974). Obedience to Authority; An Experimental View (http:/ / books.google.com/ books?id=MlpEAAAAMAAJ). Harpercollins. ISBN 0-06-131983-X. . [3] Blass, Thomas (1991). Understanding behavior in the Milgram obedience experiment: The role of personality, situations, and their / www.stanleymilgram.com/ pdf/ understanding behavoir.pdf). 60. pp. 398 – 413. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.60.3.398. . interactions. (http:/ [4] Baumrind, Diana (1964). "Some Thoughts on Ethics of Research: After Reading Milgram's "Behavioral Study of Obedience". American Psychologist 19: 421-423. [5] Milgram, Stanley (1965). "Some Conditions of Obedience and Disobedience to Authority". Human Relations 18 (1): 57 – 76. doi:10.1177/001872676501800105. [6] Milgram, Stanley (1974). "The Perils of Obedience" (http:/ / web.archive.org/ web/ 20110514231624/ http:/ / home.swbell.net/ revscat/ perilsOfObedience.html). Harper's Magazine. Archived from the original (http:/ / home.swbell.net/ revscat/ perilsOfObedience.html) on 2011-05-14. . Abridged and adapted from Obedience to Authority. [7] Milgram 1974 [8] Blass, Thomas (1999). "The Milgram paradigm after 35 years: Some things we now know about obedience to authority". Journal of Applied Social Psychology 29 (5): 955 – 978. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1999.tb00134.x. as PDF (http:/ / neuron4.psych.ubc.ca/ ~schaller/ Psyc591Readings/ Blass1999.pdf) [9] Blass, Thomas (Mar/Apr 2002). "The Man Who Shocked the World" (http:/ / www.psychologytoday. com/ articles/ 200203/ the-man-who-shocked-the-world). Psychology Today 35 (2). . [10] Discovering Psychology with Philip Zimbardo Ph.D. Updated Edition, "Power of the Situation," http:/ / video.google.com/ videoplay?docid=-6059627757980071729, reference starts at 10min 59 seconds into video. [11] Milgram films. (http:/ / www.stanleymilgram.com/ films.php) Accessed 4 October 2006. [12] Milgram 1974, p. 195 [13] Raiten-D'Antonio, Toni (1 September 2010). Ugly as Sin: The Truth about How We Look and Finding Freedom from Self-Hatred (http:/ / books.google.com/ books?id=bPxLyFEi3-EC&pg=PA89). HCI. p. 89. ISBN 978-0-7573-1465-0. . [14] Milgram 1974, p. 200 [15] Dimow, Joseph. "Resisting Authority: A Personal Account of the Milgram Obedience Experiments" (http:/ / www. jewishcurrents.org/ 2004-jan-dimow.htm), Jewish Currents, January 2004. [16] The Milgram Experiment | A lesson in depravity, the power of authority, and peer pressure (http:/ / www.new-life.net/ milgram.htm) [17] Shiller, Robert (2005). Irrational Exuberance (2nd ed.). Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press. p. 158. [18] Slater M, Antley A, Davison A, et al. (2006). Rustichini, Aldo. ed. "A virtual reprise of the Stanley Milgram obedience experiments". PLoS ONE 1 (1): e39. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000039. PMC 1762398. PMID 17183667. [19] Milgram, old answers. (http:/ / www.stanleymilgram.com/ oldanswers.html) Accessed 4 October 2006. [20] Perry, Gina (2012). "Behind the Shock Machine: the untold story of the notorious Milgram psychology experiments" (http:/ / www.amazon. com/ Behind-Shock-Machine-experiments-ebook/ dp/ B007NOI2YC/ ) (Kindle edition). Scribe Publications. . [21] Elliott, Tim (2012-04-26). "Dark legacy left by shock tactics" (http:/ / www.smh.com.au/ national/ health/ dark-legacy-left-by-shock-tactics-20120425-1xlfw.html). Sydney Morning Herald . . [22] History Will Repeat Itself: Strategies of Re-enactment in Contemporary (Media) Art and Performance, ed. Inke Arns, Gabriele Horn, Frankfurt: Verlag, 2007 [23] "The Milgram Re-enactment" (http:/ / www.milgramreenactment.org). . Retrieved 2008-06-10. [24] "The Milgram Experiment on YouTube" (http:/ / uk.youtube.com/ watch?v=y6GxIuljT3w). . Retrieved 2008-12-21. [25] Burger, Jerry M. (2008). "Replicating Milgram: Would People Still Obey Today?". American Psychologist . [26] "The Science of Evil" (http:/ / abcnews.go.com/ Primetime/ story?id=2765416& page=1). . Retrieved 2007-01-04. [27] "BBC Two Programmes — How Violent are you?" (http:/ / www.bbc.co.uk/ programmes/ b00kk4bz). . Retrieved 2009-07-09."Horizon — How Violent Are You (torrent)". [28] "Fake TV Game Show 'Tortures' Man, Shocks France" (http:/ / www.npr.org/ templates/ story/ story.php?storyId=124838091). . Retrieved 2010-10-19. [29] "Fake torture TV 'game show' reveals willingness to obey" (http:/ / www.france24.com/ en/ 20100317-disturbing-tv-docu-game-tests-limits-small-screen-power-france-game-of-death). 2010-03-17. . Retrieved 2010-03-18. [30] "Curiosity.com How evil are you?" (http:/ / curiosity.discovery.com/ topic/ intelligence/ how-evil-are-you-episode.htm). . Retrieved 2011-11-21. [31] "Sheridan & King (1972) - Obedience to authority with an authentic victim" (http:/ / www.psychexchange.co.uk/ resource/ 1742/ ). . Retrieved 2012-01-11. [32] Sheridan, C.L. and King, K.G. (1972) Obedience to authority with an authentic victim, Proceedings of the 80th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association 7: 165-6. [33] Blass 1999, p. 968

75

Milgram experiment [34] "The Stanley Milgram Films on Social Psychology by Alexander Street Press" (http:/ / alexanderstreet.com/ products/ stanley-milgram-films-social-psychology). . [35] The Tenth Level (http:/ / www.imdb.com/ title/ tt0075320/ ) at the Internet Movie Database. Accessed 4 October 2006. [36] "Atrocity." (http:/ / web.archive.org/ web/ 20070427161233/ http:/ / www.movingimage. us/ science/ sloan.php?film_id=214). Archived from the original (http:/ / www.movingimage.us/ science/ sloan.php?film_id=214) on 2007-04-27. . Retrieved 2007-03-20. [37] "Ghostbusters, Opening Scene" (http:/ / www.youtube.com/ watch?v=fn7-JZq0Yxs#t=0m32s). Columbia Pictures. September 4, 2009. . Retrieved October 22, 2011. [38] "The Heist « Derren Brown" (http:/ / derrenbrown.co.uk/ tv-shows/ the-heist/ ). .

References • Blass, Thomas (2004). The Man Who Shocked the World: The Life and Legacy of Stanley Milgram . Basic Books. ISBN 0-7382-0399-8. • Levine, Robert V. (July – August 2004). "Milgram's Progress" (http:/ / www.americanscientist.org/ template/ BookReviewTypeDetail/ assetid/ 34009;jsessionid=baaeuLYcqpRVHi). American Scientist . Book review of The Man Who Shocked the World

• Miller, Arthur G. (1986). The obedience experiments: A case study of controversy in social science . New York: Praeger. • Parker, Ian (Autumn 2000). "Obedience" (http:/ / www.granta.com/ Magazine/ 71). Granta (71). Includes an interview with one of Milgram's volunteers, and discusses modern interest in, and scepticism about, the experiment. • Tarnow, Eugen. "Towards the Zero Accident Goal: Assisting the First Officer Monitor and Challenge Captain Errors" (http:/ / cogprints.org/ 4566/ ). Journal of Aviation/Aerospace Education and Research 10 (1). • Tumanov, Vladimir. “Stanley Milgram and Siegfried Lenz: An Analysis of Deutschstunde in the Framework of Social Psychology.” (http:/ / vladarticles.yolasite.com/ resources/ Stanley Milgram and Siegfried Lenz.pdf) / www. Neophilologus: International Journal of Modern and Mediaeval Language and Literature (http:/ springerlink.com/ content/ 3073813h7842248m/ ?p=00c7969943fa42e782e6637d9df638e4& pi=8#ContactOfAuthor1) 91 (1) 2007: 135-148. • Wu, William (June 2003). "Compliance: The Milgram Experiment" (http:/ / www.ocf.berkeley.edu/ ~wwu/ psychology/ compliance.shtml). Practical Psychology.

External links • Stanley Milgram Redux, TBIYTB (http:/ / web.archive.org/ web/ 20080215010353/ http:/ / www.hippolytic. com/ blog/ 2007/ 01/ stanley_milgram_redux_1.php) — Description of a 2007 iteration of Milgram's experiment at Yale University, published in "The Yale Hippolytic," Jan. 22, 2007. (Internet Archive) • A Powerpoint presentation describing Milgram's experiment (http:/ / www.posbase.uib.no/ posbase/ Presentasjoner/ P_Milgram (1963).ppt) • Synthesis of book (http:/ / web.archive.org/ web/ 20090316175017/ http:/ / perso.wanadoo.fr/ qualiconsult/ milgramb.html) A faithful synthesis of "Obedience to Authority" – Stanley Milgram • Obedience To Authority (http:/ / knol.google.com/ k/ obedience-to-authority#) — A commentary extracted from 50 Psychology Classics (2007) • A personal account of a participant in the Milgram obedience experiments (http:/ / www. jewishcurrents.org/ 2004-jan-dimow.htm) • Summary and evaluation of the 1963 obedience experiment (http:/ / www.holah.karoo.net/ milgramstudy.htm) • The Science of Evil (http:/ / abcnews.go.com/ Primetime/ story?id=2765416&page=1) from ABC News Primetime

• The Lucifer Effect: How Good People Turn Evil (http:/ / www.webcitation.org/ 5lLKy3jno) — Video Lecture of Philip Zimbardo talking about the Milgram Experiment.

76

Milgram experiment • Zimbardo, Philip (2007). "When Good People Do Evil" (http:/ / www.yalealumnimagazine.com/ issues/ 2007_01/ milgram.html). Yale Alumni Magazine. — Article on the 45th anniversary of the Milgram experiment. • Milgram 1974, Chapter 1 and 15 (http:/ / www.panarchy.org/ milgram/ obedience.html) • People 'still willing to torture' (http:/ / news.bbc.co.uk/ 2/ hi/ health/ 7791278.stm) BBC • Beyond the Shock Machine (http:/ / www.abc.net.au/ rn/ radioeye/ stories/ 2008/ 2358103.htm), a radio documentary with the people who took part in the experiment. Includes original audio recordings of the experiment

The Monster Study is the name given to a stuttering experiment performed on twenty-two orphan children in Davenport, Iowa in 1939. It was conducted by Wendell Johnson at the University of Iowa. Johnson chose one of his graduate students, Mary Tudor, to conduct the experiment and he supervised her research. After placing the children in control and experimental groups, Tudor gave positive speech therapy to half of the children, praising the fluency of their speech, and negative speech therapy to the other half, belittling the children for every speech imperfection and telling them they were stutterers. Many of the normal speaking orphan children who received negative therapy in the experiment suffered negative psychological effects and some retained speech problems for the rest of their lives. Dubbed "The Monster Study" by some of Johnson's peers, who were horrified that he would experiment on orphan children to prove a hypothesis, the experiment was kept hidden for fear Johnson's reputation would be tarnished in the wake of human experiments conducted by the Nazis during World War II. The University of Iowa publicly apologized for the Monster Study in 2001. Patricia Zebrowski, University of Iowa assistant professor of speech pathology and audiology, notes, "The body of data that resulted from Johnson's work on children who stutter and their parents is still the largest collection of scientific information on the subject of stuttering onset. Although new work has determined that children who stutter are doing something different in their speech production than non-stutterers, Johnson was the first to talk about the importance of a stutterer's thoughts, attitudes, beliefs, and feelings. We still don't know what causes stuttering, but the 'Iowa' way of approaching study and treatment is still heavily influenced by Johnson, but with an added emphasis on speech production."[1] The Monster Study

The study The research began with the selection of twenty-two subjects from a veterans' orphanage in I owa. None were told the intent of her research, and they believed that they were to receive speech therapy. Tudor was trying to induce stuttering in healthy children and to see whether telling stutterers that their speech was fine would produce a change. Included among the twenty-two subjects were ten orphans whom teachers and matrons had marked as stutterers before the study began. Tudor and five other graduate students who agreed to serve as judges listened to each of the children speak, graded them on a scale from 1 (poor) to 5 (fluent) and concurred with the school's assessment. Five were assigned to Group IA, the experimental set, and would be told that their speech was fine. The five in Group IB, the control group, would be told that their speech is "as bad as people say". The remaining 12 children were chosen at random from the population of normally fluent orphans. Six of these were assigned to IIA. These children, ranging in age from 5 to 15, were to be told that their speech was not normal at all, that they were beginning to stutter and that they must correct this immediately. The final six children in Group IIB, similar in age to those in IIA, were normal speakers who were to be treated as such and given compliments on their nice enunciation. On the first visit, Tudor tested each child's I.Q. and identified whether they were left-handed or right-handed. A popular theory at the time held that stuttering was caused by a cerebral imbalance. If, for example, you were born

77

The Monster Study left-handed but were using your right hand, your nerve impulses would misfire, affecting your speech. Johnson did not believe the theory, but still suggested Tudor test each child's handedness. She had them draw on chalkboards and squeeze the bulb of the dynamometer. Most were right-handed, but left-handed children were present in all of the groups. There was no correlation between handedness and speech in this subject crop. During this period, they assigned numbers to the children, such as "Case No 15 Experimental Group IIA..."[2] The experimental period lasted from January until late May 1939, and the actual intervention consisted of Tudor driving to Davenport from Iowa City every few weeks and talking with each child for about 45 minutes. She followed an agreed-upon script. In her dissertation, she reported that she talked to the stuttering youngsters who were going to be told that they did not stutter. She said to them, in part, "You'll outgrow [the stuttering], and you will be able to speak even much better than you are speaking now. . . . Pay no attention to what others say about your speaking ability for undoubtedly they do not realize that this is only a phase."[3] To the non-stuttering youngsters in IIA, who were to be branded stutterers, she said: "The staff has come to the conclusion that you have a great deal of trouble with your speech. . . . You have many of the symptoms of a child who is beginning to stutter. You must try to stop yourself immediately. Use your will power. . . . Do anything to keep from stuttering. . . . Don't ever speak unless you can do it right. You see how [the name of a child in the institution who stuttered severely] stutters, don't you? Well, he undoubtedly started this very same way."[3] The children in IIA responded immediately. After her second session with 5-year-old Norma Jean Pugh, Tudor wrote, "It was very difficult to get her to speak, although she spoke very freely the month before." Another in the group, 9-year-old Betty Romp, "practically refuses to talk," a researcher wrote in his final evaluation. "Held hand or arm over eyes most of the time." Hazel Potter, 15, the oldest in her group, became "much more conscious of herself, and she talked less," Tudor noted. Potter also began to interject and to snap her fingers in frustration. She was asked why she said 'a' so much. "Because I'm afraid I can't say the next word." "Why did you snap your fingers?" "Because I was afraid I was going to say 'a.'" All of the children's schoolwork fell off. One of the boys began refusing to recite in class. The other, eleven-year-old Clarence Fifer, started anxiously correcting himself. "He stopped and told me he was going to have trouble on words before he said them," Tudor reported. She asked him how he knew. He said that the sound "wouldn't come out. Feels like it's stuck in there." The sixth orphan, Mary Korlaske, a 12-year-old, grew withdrawn and fractious. During their sessions, Tudor asked whether her best friend knew about her 'stuttering,' Korlaske muttered, "No." "Why not?" Korlaske shuffled her feet. "I hardly ever talk to her." Two years later, she ran away from the orphanage and eventually ended up at the rougher Industrial School for Girls — simultaneously escaping her human experimentation. Mary Tudor herself wasn't untouched. Three times after her experiment had officially ended she returned to the orphanage to voluntarily provide follow-up care. She told the IIA children that they didn't stutter after all. The impact, however well-meaning, was questionable. She wrote to Johnson about the orphans in a slightly defensive letter dated April 22, 1940, "I believe that in time they . . . will recover, but we certainly made a definite impression on them."[3]

Criticism The results of the study were freely available in the library of the University of Iowa, but Johnson did not seek publication of the results. The experiment became national news in the wake of a series of articles conducted by an investigative reporter at the San Jose Mercury News in 2001, and a book was written to provide an impartial scientific evaluation. The panel of authors in the book consists mostly of speech pathologists who fail to reach any consensus on either the ethical ramifications or scientific consequences of the Monster Study. Richard Schwartz concludes in Chapter 6 of the book that the Monster Study "was unfortunate in Tudor and Johnson's lack of regard for the potential harm to the children who participated and in their selection of institutionalized children simply because they were easily available. The deception and the apparent lack of debriefing were also not justifiable."

78

The Monster Study Other authors concur claiming the orphan experiment was not within the ethical boundaries of acceptable research. Others, however, felt that the ethical standards in 1939 were different from those used today. Some felt the study was poorly designed and executed by Tudor, and as a result the data offered no proof of Johnson's subsequent hypothesis that "stuttering begins, not in the child's mouth but in the parent's ear" -- i.e., that it is the well-meaning parent's effort to help the child avoid what the parent has labeled "stuttering" (but is in fact within the range of normal speech) that contributes to what ultimately becomes the problem diagnosed as stuttering.

Compensation On 17 August 2007, six of the orphan children were awarded $925,000 by the State of Iowa for lifelong psychological and emotional scars caused by six months of torment during the Iowa University experiment. The study learned that although none of the children became stutterers, some became self-conscious and reluctant to speak.[4] A spokesman of the University of Iowa called the experiment "regrettable" and added: "This is a study that should never be considered defensible in any era. In no way would I ever think of defending this study. In no way. It’s more than unfortunate."[5][6] Before her death, Mary Tudor expressed deep regret about her role in the Monster Study and maintained that Wendell Johnson should have done more to reverse the negative effects on the orphan children's speech. In spite of Wendell Johnson's role in the creation of the Monster Study, Tudor still felt she had made many positive contributions to speech pathology and stuttering research..

Story origins The lawsuit was an outgrowth of a San Jose Mercury News article in 2001 conducted by an investigative reporter. The article revealed that several of the orphans had long-lasting psychological effects stemming from the experiment. The state tried unsuccessfully to have the lawsuit dismissed but in September, 2005, the Iowa's Supreme Court justices agreed with a lower court in rejecting the state's claim of immunity and petition for dismissal. Many of the orphans testified that they were harmed by the "Monster Study" but outside of Mary Tudor, who testified in a deposition on Nov. 19, 2002, there were no actual eye witnesses to the events. The advanced age of the three surviving former orphans on the plaintiff's side helped expedite a settlement with the state. The Iowa attorney general's office said in a press release on Aug. 17, 2007, that the settlement of $925,000 was fair and appropriate, although the state refused to accept liability for any potential harm caused to the orphans. "For the plaintiffs, we hope and believe it will help provide closure relating to experiences from long ago and to memories going back almost 70 years. For all parties, it ends long-running, difficult and costly litigation that only would have run up more expenses and delayed resolution to plaintiffs who are in their seventies and eighties." (DM Register) Despite the settlement, the debate remains contentious over what harm, if any, the Monster Study caused the orphan children. Nicholas Johnson, the son of the late Wendell Johnson, has vehemently defended his father. He and some speech pathologists have argued that Wendell Johnson did not intend to harm the orphan children and that none of the orphans actually were diagnosed as "stutterers" at the end of the experiment. Other speech pathologists have condemned the experiment and said that the orphans' speech and behavior was adversely affected by the negative conditioning they received. Letters between Mary Tudor and Wendell Johnson that were written shortly after the experiment ended showed that the children's speech had deteriorated significantly. Mary Tudor returned to the orphanage three times to try and reverse the negative effects caused by the experiment but lamented the fact that she was unable to provide enough positive therapy to reverse the deleterious effects. (Ethics and Orphans. San Jose Mercury News). Today the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association prohibits experimentation on children when there exists a significant chance of causing lasting harmful consequences. It may be unfair, however, to judge the study by the formal ethical standards that were only created later. The negative consequences of this study appear minor when

79

The Monster Study compared with ethical violations in human subjects research in other fields, conducted throughout the second half of the 20th century. These latter cases, reviewed, approved and funded in major research institutions, sometimes resulted in the death of subjects.[7] The study was "suppressed" in the sense that Wendell Johnson made no attempt to pursue publication of his results, reportedly on the advice of colleagues, who warned him that the experiment could tarnish his career. However, the thesis was bound, catalogued, and made available in the university's library in identical fashion to all other masters theses. It was often checked out over the years. It was referred to in academic and general publications. Within the profession of speech pathology, there is to this day no single, agreed-upon hypothesis of stuttering —either as to its cause or a single, most appropriate therapy. (This statement is consistent with what is attributed to Patricia Zebrowski, above).

References [1] (http:/ / www.uiowa.edu/ ~cyberlaw/ wj/ wjfigspe.html) [2] Dyer, Jim. "Ethic and Orphans: 'The Monster Study'" (http:/ / www-psych.stanford.edu/ ~bigopp/ stutter2.html). Mercury News. Mercury News. . Retrieved 19 September 2011. [3] Reynolds, Gretchen. "The Suttering Doctor's 'Monster Study'" (http:/ / www.nytimes.com/ 2003/ 03/ 16/ magazine/ the-stuttering-doctor-s-monster-study.html). The New York Times. The New York Times. . Retrieved 25 September 2011. [4] Huge payout in US stuttering case (http:/ / news.bbc.co.uk/ 2/ hi/ americas/ 6952446. stm) - BBC News [5] (http:/ / www.uiowa.edu/ ~cyberlaw/ writing/ CUNY1213.html) [6] Rothwell, J.D. (2003) In the Company of Others: An Introduction to Communication. Mayfield Pub Co. [7] See generally, Robert Goldfarb, ed., Ethics: A Case Study from Fluency (Oxford and San Diego: Plural Publishing, 2005) -- which is probably the book the author of the entry above intended to reference -- especially chapter 9. http:/ / www.nicholasjohnson.org/ wjohnson/ hsr/ njhsr512.pdf

External links • 'Monster Study' Still Stings. Orphans Subjected To Intense Ridicule In Bid To Make Them Stutter (http:/ / www. cbsnews.com/ stories/ 2003/ 08/ 06/ health/ main566882.shtml) • Ethics and Orphans: The `Monster Study' (http:/ / www-psych.stanford.edu/ ~bigopp/ stutter2.html) • Abandoned: Now Stutter My Orphan (http:/ / jerryhalvorson.com/ viewbooksdetail.php?book=204)

80

Naturalistic observation

Naturalistic observation is, in contrast to analog observation, a research tool in which a subject is observed in its natural habitat without any manipulation by the observer.[1][2] During naturalistic observation researchers take great care to avoid interfering with the behavior they are observing by using unobtrusive methods.[3] Naturalistic observation involves two main differences that set it apart from other forms of data gathering. In the context of a naturalistic observation the environment is in no way being manipulated by the observer nor was it created by the observer.[3] Naturalistic observation

Naturalistic observation as a research tool comes with both advantages and disadvantages that impact its application. By merely observing a given instance without any manipulation in its natural context it makes the behaviors exhibited more credible because they are occurring in a real typical scenario as opposed to an artificial one generated within a lab.[3] Naturalistic observation also allows for study of events that it is deemed unethical to study via experimental models, such as the impact of high school shootings on students attending the high school.[3] They may observe animals in their natural habitat. They observe mating, living conditions, and many other qualities of animals. They can be overt (the participants are aware they are being observed) or covert (the participants do not know they are being observed). There are obviously more ethical guidelines to take into consideration when a covert observation is being carried out.

References [1] Cherry, Kendra. "What Is Naturalistic Observation?" (http:/ / psychology. about.com/ od/ nindex/ g/ naturalistic.htm). About.com. . Retrieved 15 May 2011. [2] "Psychology 202Q Lab: Naturalistic Observation" (http:/ / www.sp.uconn.edu/ ~ps202vc/ PDF/ NaturalisticObservation.pdf). University of Connecticut. . Retrieved 15 May 2011. [3] "Naturalistic Observation" (http:/ / www.radford.edu/ ~tpierce/ 201 files/ 201 handouts/ Naturalistic Observationl ecture notes.pdf). radford.edu. . Retrieved 15 May 2011.

81

Nun Study

Nun Study The Nun Study of Aging and Alzheimer's Disease is a continuing longitudinal study, begun in 1986, to examine the onset of Alzheimer's Disease. David Snowdon, the founding Nun Study investigator, originally began his research at the University of Minnesota, but moved it to the University of Kentucky in 1986. In 2008, with Dr. Snowdon's retirement from the University of Kentucky the study returned to the University of Minnesota. Similar environmental influences and general lifestyles make the nuns an ideal population to study, and although it is ongoing it has yielded several findings.[1]

Origin The Nun Study, begun (officially) in 1986 with funding by the National Institute on Aging, focuses on a group of 678 American Roman Catholic sisters who are members of the School Sisters of Notre Dame. Studying a relatively homogeneous group (no drug use, little or no alcohol, similar housing and reproductive histories, etc.) minimizes the extraneous variables that may confound other similar research.

Current findings Researchers have also accessed the convent archive to review documents amassed throughout the lives of the nuns in the study. Among the documents reviewed were autobiographical essays [2] that had been written by the nuns upon joining the Sisterhood; upon review, it was found that an essay's lack of linguistic density (e.g., complexity, vivacity, fluency) functioned as a significant predictor of its author's risk for developing Alzheimer's disease in old age. Crucial to note, with respect to this finding, is that the approximate mean age of the nuns at the time of writing was merely 22 years. Roughly 80% of nuns whose writing was measured as lacking in linguistic density went on to develop Alzheimer's disease in old age; meanwhile, of those whose writing was not lacking, only 10% later developed the disease.[3] Overall, findings of the Nun Study suggest "that traits in early, mid, and late life have strong relationships with the risk of Alzheimer's disease, as well as the mental and cognitive disabilities of old age."[4]

External links Official Nun Study homepage [5] Nun study video: video 1 [6] Photoessay by Steve Liss [7] for TIME , 2001 "Nuns Offer Clues to Alzheimer's and Aging" [2] by Pam Belluck for New York Times, 2001: Article contains, among other things, quotes from the nuns' autobiographical essays which may help to elucidate what is meant above by a "lack of linguistic density." • "Landmark Study Links Cognitive Ability of Youth With Alzheimer's Disease Risk Later in Life" [8] National Institute on Aging, entry on Nun Study, 1996 • Agatha Christie And Nuns Tell A Tale Of Alzheimer's [9], on NPR • • • •

82

Nun Study

References [1] Suzanne L. Tyas, David A. Snowdon, Mark F. Desrosiers, Kathryn P. Riley and William R. Markesbery (2007). Healthy ageing in the Nun Study: Definition and neuropathologic correlates. Age and Ageing, 36(6), 650-655 [2] http:/ / www.stpt.usf.edu/ ~jsokolov/ agealzh2.htm [3] Riley KP, Snowdon DA, Desrosiers MF, Markesbery WR: Early life linguistic ability, late life cognitive function, and neuropathology: Findings from the Nun Study Neurobiology of Aging 26(3):341347, 2005. [4] The University of Minnesota's Nun Study FAQ page, 18 Dec 2009, http:/ / www.healthstudies.umn.edu/ nunstudy/ faq. jsp. [5] http:/ / nunstudy. org [6] http:/ / sciencehack.com/ videos/ view/ nw2lafKIEio [7] http:/ / www.time.com/ time/ covers/ 1101010514/ [8] http:/ / www.nia.nih.gov/ Alzheimers/ ResearchInformation/ NewsReleases/ Archives/ PR1996/ PR19960220nunstudy. htm [9] http:/ / www.npr.org/ templates/ story/ story.php?storyId=127211884

Oddball paradigm The oddball paradigm is a technique used in evoked potential research in which trains of stimuli that are usually auditory or visual are used to assess the neural reactions to unpredictable but recognizable events. The subject is asked to react either by counting or by button pressing incidences of target stimuli that are hidden as rare occurrences amongst a series of more common stimuli, that often require no response. It has been found that an evoked research potential across the parieto-central area of the skull that is usually around 300 ms and called P300 is larger after the target stimulus. It was first used by Nancy Squires, Kenneth Squires and Steven Hillyard at the University of California, San Diego[1] The P300 wave only occurs if the subject is actively engaged in the task of detecting the targets. Its amplitude varies with the improbability of the targets. Its latency varies with the difficulty of discriminating the target stimulus from the standard stimuli.[2] Detection of these targets reliably evokes transient activity in prefrontal cortical regions. Measuring hemodynamic brain activity in the prefrontal cortex using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) revealed that the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex is associated with dynamic changes in the mapping of stimuli to responses (e.g. response strategies), independently of any changes in behavior.[3] Since P300 has been shown to be an attention-dependent cognitive component in wakefulness, one might suppose that it would be absent during sleep-a time in which information processing of external stimuli is commonly thought to be inhibited. Research to date indicates that P300 can be recorded during the transition to sleep and then reappears in REM sleep. Stimuli that are rare and intrusive are more likely to elicit the classic parietal P300 in REM sleep. There is, however, little or no positivity at frontal sites. This is consistent with brain imaging studies that show frontal deactivation is characteristic of REM sleep. These findings indicate that while sleepers may be able to detect stimulus deviance in stage 1 and REM, the frontal contribution to consciousness may be lost.[4] Studies of cognition often use an oddball paradigm to study effects of stimulus novelty and significance on information processing. However, an oddball tends to be perceptually more novel than the standard, repeated stimulus as well as more relevant to the ongoing task, making it difficult to disentangle effects due to perceptual novelty and stimulus significance. Evaluating different brain ERP’s can decipher this effect. A frontro-central N2 component of ERP is primarily affected by perceptual novelty, whereas only the centro-parietal P3 component is modulated by both stimulus significance and novelty.[5] The classic auditory oddball paradigm can be modified to produce different neural responses and can therefore be used to investigate dysfunctions in sensory and cognitive processing in clinical samples.[6] A unique application of the oddball paradigm is being used heavily in Schizophrenia research to study the effects in neuronal generator patterns in continuous recognition memory, and the endophenotypes, which provide model on genetic relation of psychiatric diseases that represents phenotypes between manifest clinical syndrome and genetic

83

Oddball paradigm underpinnings.[7] The Oddball paradigm has robust effects on pupil dilation, although scientists are unsure of the reason underlying this effect.[8]

References [1] Squires NK, Squires KC, Hillyard SA. (1975). Two varieties of long-latency positive waves evoked by unpredictable auditory stimuli in man. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 38(4):387-401. PMID 46819 [2] Picton, W. T. (1992). The P300 wave of the human event-related potential. Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology , 456-479. doi: 1464675 [3] Huettel, S., & McCarthy, G. (2004). What is odd about the odd-ball task? prefrontal cortex is activated by dynamic changes in response strategy. Neuropsychologia, 42, 379-386. Retrieved from http:/ / elsevier.com/ local/ neuropsychologia [4] Cote, K. A. (2002). Probing awareness during sleep with the auditory odd-ball paradigm. International journal of psychophysiology: Official journal of the international organization of psychophysiology, 46(3), 227-241. doi: 12445950 [5] Ferrari, V. J. (2010). Detecting Novelty and Significance. Journal Of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22(2), 404-411. [6] İşoğlu-Alkaç, Ü. (2007). EVENT-RELATED POTENTIALS DURING AUDITORY ODDBALL, AND COMBINED AUDITORY ODDBALL – VISUAL PARADIGMS. International Journal Of Neuroscience, 117(4), 487-506. [7] Beyond the Oddball in Schizophrenia Research: Neurophysiologic Studies of Memory and Language Processing. (2010). Psychophysiology, 47S10-S11. [8] G.A. Book, M.C. Stevens, G. Pearlson, K.A. Kiehl - Fusion of fMRI and the Pupil Response During an Auditory Oddball Task - Accepted to the 2008 Conference of the Cognitive Neuroscience Society.

Oklahoma City sonic boom tests The Oklahoma City sonic boom tests, also known as Operation Bongo II, refer to a controversial experiment in which 1,253 sonic booms were carried out over Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, over a period of six months in 1964. The experiment, which ran from February 3 through July 29, 1964, inclusive, intended to quantify the effects of transcontinental supersonic transport (SST) aircraft on a city. The program was managed by the Federal Aviation Administration, which enlisted the aid of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the U.S. Air Force. Public opinion measurement was subcontracted to the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) of the University of Chicago. It was not the first experiment, as tests had been done at Wallops Island, Virginia, in 1958 and 1960, at Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada, in 1960 and 1961, and in St. Louis, Missouri, in 1961 and 1962. However, none of these tests examined sociological and economic factors in any detail. The Oklahoma City experiments were vastly larger in scope, seeking to measure the boom's effect on structures and public attitude, and to develop standards for boom prediction and insurance data. Oklahoma City was chosen, as the region's population was perceived to be relatively tolerant for such an experiment. The city had an economic dependency on the FAA's Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center and Tinker Air Force Base, both of which were based there.

The sonic booms Starting on February 3, 1964, the first sonic booms began, eight booms per day that began at 7 a.m. and ended in the afternoon. The noise was limited to 1.0 to 1.5 pound-force per square foot (48 to 72 pascal) for the first twelve weeks, then increased to 1.5 to 2.0 psf (72 to 96 pascal) for the final fourteen weeks. This range was about equal to that expected from an SST. Though eight booms per day were harsh, the peak overpressures of 2.0 psf were supposedly an order of magnitude lower than that needed to shatter glass, and are considered marginally irritating according to published standards. The Air Force used F-104 and B-58 aircraft, with the occasional F-101 and F-106. Oklahomans initially took the tests in stride. This was chalked up to the booms being predictable and coming at specific times. An FAA-hired camera crew, filming a group of construction workers, were surprised to find that the

84

Oklahoma City sonic boom tests booms signalled their lunch break. However, in the first 14 weeks, 147 windows in the city's two tallest buildings, the First National Bank and Liberty National Bank, were broken. By late spring, organized civic groups were already springing into action, but were rebuffed by city politicians, who asked them to show legislators their support. An attempt to lodge an injunction against the tests was denied by district court Judge Stephen Chandler, who said that the plaintiffs could not establish that they suffered any mental or physical harm and that the tests were a vital national need. A restraining order was then sought, which brought a pause to the tests on May 13 until it was decided that the court had exceeded its authority. Pressure mounted from within. The federal Bureau of the Budget lambasted the FAA about poor experiment design, while complaints flooded into Oklahoma Senator A. S. "Mike" Monroney's office. Finally, East Coast newspapers began to pick up the issue, turning on the national spotlight. On June 6 the Saturday Review published an article titled The Era of Supersonic Morality , which criticized the manner in which the FAA had targeted a city without consulting local government. By July, the Washington Post reported on the turmoil at the local and state level in Oklahoma. Oklahoma City council members were finally beginning to respond to citizen complaints and put pressure on Washington. The pressure put a premature end to the tests. On July 30, the tests were over. An Oklahoma City Times headline reported: "Silence is deafening!" Zhivko D. Angeluscheff, a prominent hearing specialist serving with the National Academy of Science, recalled: "I was witness to the fact that men were executing their brethren during six long months ... with their thunder, the sonic boom, they were punishing all living creatures on earth."

The fallout The results of the experiment, reported by NORC, were released beginning in February, 1965.[1][2][3] The FAA was displeased by the overly academic style of the report, but stressed the positive findings, saying "the overwhelming majority felt they could learn to live with the numbers and kinds of booms experienced." Indeed, the NORC reported that 73% of subjects in the study said that they could live indefinitely with eight sonic booms per day, while 25% said that they couldn't. About 3% of the population telephoned, sued, or wrote protest letters, but Oklahoma City surgeons and hospitals filed no complaints. However, with the city population at 500,000, that 3% figure represented 15,000 upset individuals. At least 15,452 complaints and 4,901 claims were lodged against the U.S. government, most for cracked glass and plaster. The FAA rejected 94% of all the claims it received, fueling a rising tide of anger that soared even after the experiment's conclusion. By 1965, Senator Monroney had grown extremely upset over hundreds of letters from his constituents complaining about the FAA's "cavalier manner" of dismissing claims, and began demanding frequent reports from the agency. As late as May 1966, the FAA was still attempting to respond to all of Monroney's inquiries. The SST program lost all support from Monroney, who had initially been a key supporter. The Oklahoma City experiments were partly to blame for weakening the FAA's authority in sonic boom issues. After the tests, President Lyndon B. Johnson's presidential advisory committee transferred matters of policy from the FAA to the National Academy of Science. Secretary of the Interior Stewart Udall complained that the NAS did not include one environmental preservationist, and pointed out that although the Oklahoma City tests were stacked in favor of the SST, they were still extremely negative. Indeed by 1966, national grassroots campaigns against sonic booms were beginning to affect public policy. The FAA's poor handling of claims and its payout of only $123,000 led to a class action lawsuit against the U.S. government. On March 8, 1969, the government lost its appeal. The negative publicity associated with the tests partially influenced the 1971 cancellation of the Boeing 2707 project and led to the United States' complete withdrawal from SST design.

85

Oklahoma City sonic boom tests

References [1] dtic.mil, COMMUNITY REACTIONS TO SONIC BOOMS IN THE OKLAHOMA CITY AREA (http:/ / www.dtic.mil/ srch/ doc?collection=t3&id=AD0613620) [2] dtic.mil, COMMUNITY REACTIONS ... VOLUME 2 (http:/ / www.dtic.mil/ srch/ doc?collection=t3&id=AD0625332) [3] dtic.mil, COMMUNITY REACTIONS ... VOLUME 3 (http:/ / www.dtic.mil/ srch/ doc?collection=t3&id=AD0637563)

Further reading • • • • •

/ www.airpower.airuniv.edu/ airchronicles/ aureview/ 1971/ Sonic Boom and the Supersonic Transport (http:/ jul-aug/ roberds.html), Maj. Richard M. Roberds, Air University, U.S. Air Force, 1971. / www.edmondpaper.com/ detail.php?116294,5,37), Steve OKC endured 1,494 sonic booms in 1964 (http:/ Gust, Edmond Life & Leisure, 2005. / www.noisepollution.org/ epa/ The Effects of Sonic Boom and Similar Impulsive Noise on Structures (http:/ roll9/ roll9doc18.pdf) (PDF), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1971. Clipped Wings, Mel Horwitch, MIT Press, 1982. The SST: Here It Comes Ready or Not , Don Dwiggins, Doubleday & Company, 1968.

Open Field (animal test) The Open Field Test (OFT) is an experiment used to assay general locomotor activity levels and anxiety in rodents in scientific research.[1]

Experimental Design Developed by Calvin S. Hall to test emotionality of rodents.[2] The open field test (OFT) is a commonly used qualitative and quantitative measure of general locomotor activity and willingness to explore in rodents.[3] The open field is a table that may have surrounding walls to prevent escape. Commonly the field is marked in a grid and square crossings, rearing, and time spent moving are used to assess the activity of the rodent. In the modern open field apparatus, infrared beams can be used to automate the assessment A Circular Open Field process. The OFT is also often used to assess anxiety by including additional measures of defecation, time spent in the center of the field, and the first five minutes of activity.[4] The relation between the OFT and other tests of exploratory activity (elevated plus maze and emergence) have been analyzed in two mouse strains.[5] Changes in these measures are often used to assess the sedative or stimulant effects of pharmacological agents. This basic behavioral assessment is used in almost every study involving rodent behavior. Newer attempts has been to analyse the OFT by quantifying the animal's moment-by-moment developmental dynamics. A recent study was able to show that mouse exploratory behavior consists of sequences of repeated motion: iterative processes that increase in extent and complexity, whose presumed function is a systematic active management of input acquired during the exploration of a novel environment.[6]

86

Open Field (animal test)

87

References [1] Denenberg, Victor H. (July 1969). "Open-field Behavior in the Rat: What Does it Mean?". Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 159 (Experimental Approaches to the Study of Emotional Behavior): 852 – 859. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.1969.tb12983.x. [2] Hall, CS; Ballachey EL (1932). "A study of the rat's behavior in a field: a contribution to method in comparative psychology." (http:/ / psycnet.apa.org/ psycinfo/ 1932-04321-001). University of California Publications in Psychology 6: 1 – 12. . [3] Stanford, SC (2007). "The Open Field Test: Reinventing the Wheel". Journal of Psychopharmacology 21 (2): 134-4. doi:10.1177/0269881107073199. [4] Prut, L; Belzung C (2003). "The open field as a paradigm to measure the effects of drugs on anxiety-like behaviors: a review.". European Journal of Pharmacology 463 (1-3): 3 – 33. doi:10.1016/S0014-2999(03)01272-X. PMID 12600700. [5] Lalonde, R; Strazielle C (2008). "Relations between open-field, elevated plus-maze, and emergence tests as displayed by C57/BL6J and BALB/c mice.". Journal of Neuroscience Methods 171 (1): 48 – 52. PMID 18358538. [6] Quantifying the buildup in extent and complexity of free exploration in mice (http:/ / www.pnas.org/ content/ early/ 2011/ 03/ 04/ 1014837108. short)

PEBL (software) is an open source software program that allows researchers to design and run psychological experiments. It runs on PCs using Windows, OSX, and Linux, using the cross-platform Simple DirectMedia Library (libSDL). It was first released in 2003. PEBL (Psychology Experiment Building Language

The Psychology Experiment Building Language (PEBL)

[1]

Developer(s)

The PEBL Project

Initial release

2003

Written in

C, C++, and PEBL (using the libSDL)

Operating system

Microsoft Windows, Mac OS X, Linux, Unix

Type

Programming language

License

GNU General Public License

Website

pebl.sourceforge.net

[1]

Overview PEBL is a programming language that allows users to create experiments by editing text files. It is written in C++, with a language parser designed using Flex and Bison. It incorporates functions compiled as C++ code that can be used in PEBL, as well as a large number of functions written in PEBL itself [2] [3] PEBL supports presenting stimuli via text, images, movies, audio files; allows response collection via keypress, mouse, joystick, and specialized hardware devices; and supports a number of networking and communication protocols. The PEBL system and related files have been downloaded more than 100,000 times [4].

PEBL (software)

The PEBL Test Battery As well as allowing researchers to develop their own experiments, PEBL includes a set of more than 50 common psychological testing paradigms as part of its Test Battery. Many of its tests have been used and published in peer-reviewed journals [5] [6][3] These include implementations of: • Iowa gambling task • Wisconsin card sorting task • Memory Span • Corsi block-tapping test • Psychomotor vigilance task • Match-to-sample task • TOVA • Tower of London test • Compensatory Tracking Task • Trail-making test

References [1] http:/ / pebl.sourceforge.net/ [2] Mueller, S. T. (2011). The PEBL Manual, Version 0.12. Lulu Press. ISBN 978-0557658176. [3] Piper, B. J., Li, V., Eiwaz, M. A., Kobel, Y. V., Benice, T. S., Chu, A. M., Olson, R., Rice, D., Gray, H., Mueller, S. T., & Raber, J. (2012). Executive function on the psychology experiment building language tests. Behavior research methods, 44(1), 110-123. [4] http:/ / sourceforge.net/ projects/ pebl/ files/ stats/ timeline [5] http:/ / sourceforge.net/ apps/ mediawiki/ pebl/ index.php?title=Publications_citing_PEBL [6] Mueller, S. T. (2010). "A partial implementation of the BICA cognitive decathlon using the Psychology Experiment Building Language (PEBL)". International Journal of Machine Consciousness 2 (2): 273-288. doi:10.1142/S1793843010000497.

External Links http:/ / pebl.sourceforge.net

88

Pit of despair

Pit of despair The pit of despair was a name used by American comparative psychologist Harry Harlow for a device he designed, technically called a vertical chamber apparatus, that he used in experiments on rhesus macaque monkeys at the University of Wisconsin – Madison in the 1970s.[1] The aim of the research was to produce an animal model of clinical depression. Researcher Stephen Suomi described the device as "little more than a stainless-steel trough with sides that sloped to a rounded bottom": A 3/8 in. wire mesh floor 1 in. above the bottom of the chamber allowed waste material to drop through the drain and out of holes drilled in the stainless-steel. The chamber was equipped with a food box and a water-bottle holder, and was covered with a pyramid top [removed in the accompanying photograph], designed to discourage incarcerated subjects from hanging from the upper part of the chamber.[2] Harlow had already placed newly born monkeys in isolation chambers for up to one year. With the pit of despair, he placed monkeys between three months and three years old in the chamber alone, after they had bonded with their mothers, for up to ten weeks.[3] Within a few days, they had stopped moving about and remained huddled in a corner.

Background Much of Harlow's scientific career was spent studying maternal bonding, what he described as the "nature of love". These experiments involved rearing newborn monkeys with surrogate mothers, ranging from toweling covered cones to a machine that modeled abusive mothers by assaulting the baby monkeys with cold air or spikes. [4] The point of the experiments was to pinpoint the basis of the mother-child relationship, namely whether the infant primarily sought food or affection. Harlow concluded it was the latter. In 1971, Harlow's wife died of cancer and he began to suffer from depression. He was treated and returned to work but, as Lauren Slater writes, his colleagues noticed a difference in his demeanor.[5] He abandoned his research into maternal attachment and developed an interest in isolation and depression. Harlow's first experiments involved isolating a monkey in a cage surrounded by steel walls with a small one-way mirror, so the experimenters could look in, but the monkey could not look out. The only connection the monkey had with the world was when the experimenters' hands changed his bedding or delivered fresh water and food. Baby monkeys were placed in these boxes soon after birth; four were left for 30 days, four for six months, and four for a year. After 30 days, the "total isolates," as they were called, were found to be "enormously disturbed." After being isolated for a year, they barely moved, did not explore or play, and were incapable of having sexual relations. When placed with other monkeys for a daily play session, they were badly bullied. Two of them refused to eat and starved themselves to death.[6] Harlow also wanted to test how isolation would affect parenting skills, but the isolates were unable to mate. Artificial insemination had not then been developed; instead, Harlow devised what he called a "rape rack," to which the female isolates were tied in normal monkey mating posture. He found that, just as they were incapable of having sexual relations, they were also unable to parent their offspring, either abusing or neglecting them. "Not even in our most devious dreams could we have designed a surrogate as evil as these real monkey mothers were," he wrote.[6] Having no social experience themselves, they were incapable of appropriate social interaction. One mother held her baby's face to the floor and chewed off his feet and fingers. Another crushed her baby's head. Most of them simply ignored their offspring.[6] These experiments showed Harlow what total and partial isolation did to developing monkeys, but he felt he had not captured the essence of depression, which he believed was characterized by feelings of loneliness, helplessness, and a sense of being trapped, or being "sunk in a well of despair," he said.[6]

89

Pit of despair

Vertical chamber apparatus The technical name for the new depression chamber was "vertical chamber apparatus," though Harlow himself insisted on calling it the "pit of despair." He had at first wanted to call it the "dungeon of despair," and also used terms like "well of despair," and "well of loneliness." Blum writes that his colleagues tried to persuade him to not to use such descriptive terms, that a less visual name would be easier politically. Gene Sackett of the University of Washington in Seattle, one of Harlow's doctoral students who went on to conduct additional deprivation studies, said, "He first wanted to call it a dungeon of despair. Can you imagine the reaction to that?"[7] Most of the monkeys placed inside it were at least three months old and had already bonded with others. The point of the experiment was to break those bonds in order to create the symptoms of depression. The chamber was a small, metal, inverted pyramid, with slippery sides, slanting down to a point. The monkey was placed in the point. The opening was covered with mesh. The monkeys would spend the first day or two trying to climb up the slippery sides. After a few days, they gave up. Harlow wrote, "most subjects typically assume a hunched position in a corner of the bottom of the apparatus. One might presume at this point that they find their situation to be hopeless."[8] Stephen J. Suomi, another of Harlow's doctoral students, placed some monkeys in the chamber in 1970 for his PhD. He wrote that he could find no monkey who had any defense against it. Even the happiest monkeys came out damaged. He concluded that even a happy, normal childhood was no defense against depression. The experiments delivered what science writer Deborah Blum has called "common sense results," namely, that monkeys, normally very social animals in nature, emerge from isolation badly damaged, and that some recover while others do not.[9]

Reaction The experiments were condemned, both at the time and later, from within the scientific community and elsewhere in academia. In 1974, American literary critic Wayne C. Booth wrote that, "Harry Harlow and his colleagues go on torturing their nonhuman primates decade after decade, invariably proving what we all knew in advance —that social creatures can be destroyed by destroying their social ties." He writes that Harlow made no mention of the criticism of the morality of his work.[10] Harlow's colleagues and doctoral students also expressed concern. Sackett told Blum that, in his view, the animal liberation movement in the U.S. was born as a result of Harlow's experiments. Charles Snowdon, a junior member of the faculty at the time, who became head of psychology at Wisconsin, said that Harlow had himself been very depressed by his wife's cancer. Snowdon was appalled by the design of the vertical chambers. He asked Suomi why they were using them, and Harlow replied, "Because that's how it feels when you're depressed."[11] Leonard Rosenblum, who studied under Harlow, told Lauren Slater that Harlow enjoyed using shocking terms for his apparatus because "he always wanted to get a rise out of people." [12] Another of Harlow's students, William Mason, who also conducted deprivation experiments elsewhere,[13] said that Harlow "kept this going to the point where it was clear to many people that the work was really violating ordinary sensibilities, that anybody with respect for life or people would find this offensive. It's as if he sat down and said, 'I'm only going to be around another ten years. What I'd like to do, then, is leave a great big mess behind.' If that was his aim, he did a perfect job."[8]

90

Pit of despair

Notes [1] Blum 1994, p. 95, Blum 2002, pp. 218-219. Blum 1994, p. 95: "... the most controversial experiment to come out of the Wisconsin laboratory, a device that Harlow insisted on calling the "pit of despair." [2] Suomi 1971, p. 33. [3] McKinney, Suomi, and Harlow 1972. [4] Slater, Lauren. Opening Skinner's box: great psychological experiments of the twentieth century, W. W. Norton & Company, 2005, ISBN 0-393-32655-1, pp.136-40. [5] Slater 2005, pp. 251-2 [6] Blum 2002, p. 216. [7] Blum 1994, p. 95; Blum 2002, p. 219. [8] Blum 1994, p. 218. [9] Blum 2002, p. 225. [10] Booth, Wayne C. Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent , Volume 5, of University of Notre Dame, Ward-Phillips lectures in English language and literature, University of Chicago Press, 1974, p. 114. Booth is explicitly discussing this experiment. His next sentence is, "His most recent outrage consists of placing monkeys in "solitary" for twenty days —what he calls a "vertical chamber apparatus ... designed on an intuitive basis" to produce "a state of helplessness and hopelessness, sunken in a well of despair." [11] Blum 2002, p. 220. [12] Slater 2005, p. 148 [13] Capitanio and Mason 2000.

References • Blum, Deborah (1994). The Monkey Wars. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-510109-X. • Blum, Deborah (2002). Love at Goon Park: Harry Harlow and the Science of Affection. Perseus Publishing. ISBN 0-7382-0278-9. • Capitanio J.P., Mason W.A. (June 2000). "Cognitive style: problem solving by rhesus macaques (Macaca / content.apa.org/ journals/ com/ 114/ 2/ mulatta) reared with living or inanimate substitute mothers" (http:/ 115). J Comp Psychol 114 (2): 115 – 25. PMID 10890583. • McKinney W.T. Jr., Suomi S.J., Harlow H.F. (March 1972). "Vertical-chamber confinement of juvenile-age rhesus monkeys. A study in experimental psychopathology" (http:/ / archpsyc.ama-assn.org/ cgi/ pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=4621802). Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 26 (3): 223 – 8. PMID 4621802. • Stephens, M.L. Maternal Deprivation Experiments in Psychology: A Critique of Animal Models. AAVS, NAVS, NEAVS, 1986. • Suomi, Stephen John. "Experimental Production of Depressive Behavior in Young Rhesus Monkeys: Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Psychology) at the University of Wisconsin," University of Wisconsin, 1971, p. 33.

Further reading • Harry Harlow's Monkey Love Experiments (http:/ / darkwing.uoregon.edu/ ~adoption/ studies/ HarlowMLE. htm)

91

Project Pigeon

Project Pigeon During World War II, Project Pigeon (later Project Orcon, for "organic control") was American behaviorist B.F. Skinner's attempt to develop a pigeon-guided missile.[1] The control system involved a lens at the front of the missile projecting an image of the target to a screen inside, while a pigeon trained (by operant conditioning) to recognize the target pecked at it. As long as the pecks remained in the center of the screen, the missile would fly straight, but pecks off-center would cause the screen to tilt, which would then, via a connection to the missile's flight controls, cause the missile to change course. Although skeptical of the idea, the National Defense Research Committee nevertheless contributed $25,000 to the research. However, Skinner's plans to use pigeons in Pelican missiles was considered too eccentric and impractical; although he had some success with the training, he could not get his idea taken seriously. The program was canceled on October 8, 1944, because the military believed that "further prosecution of this project would seriously delay others which in the minds of the Division have more immediate promise of combat application." Project Pigeon was revived by the Navy in 1948 as "Project Orcon"; it was canceled in 1953 when electronic guidance systems' reliability was proven.

References [1] "Top secret weapons revealed". Military Channel. 2012-08-14.

• Colton Coy Cardinal (2010). Cumulative Record . Peace River, Alberta: Appleton-Century-Crofts. ISBN 0-87411-969-3. • C.V. Glines: Top Secret WWII Bat and Bird Bomber Program (http:/ / www.historynet.com/ magazines/ aviation_history/ 3034151.html), Aviation History, May 2005, Vol. 15 Issue 5, p38-44

External links • Project Orcon (http:/ / www.elecdesign.com/ Globals/ PlanetEE/ Content/ 4964.html) • National Museum of American History (http:/ / historywired.si.edu/ object.cfm?ID=353)

92

Pseudoword

Pseudoword A pseudoword is a unit of speech or text that appears to be an actual word in a certain language (at least superficially), while in fact it has no meaning in the lexicon. It is a kind of non-lexical vocable. Within linguistics, a pseudoword is defined specifically as respecting the phonotactic restrictions of a language. That is, it does not include sounds or series of sounds that do not exist in that language: it is easily pronounceable for speakers of the language. Also, when written down, a pseudoword does not include strings of characters that are not permissible in the spelling of the target language. "Vonk" is a pseudoword in English, while "dfhnxd" is not. The latter is an example of a nonword. Nonwords are contrasted with pseudowords in that they are not pronounceable and by that their spelling could not be the spelling of a real word. Pseudowords are also sometimes called wug words in the context of linguistic experiments. This is because wug [wʌg] was one such pseudoword used by Jean Berko Gleason in her wug test 1958 experiments. Words like wug, which could have been a perfectly acceptable word in English but isn't due to an accidental gap, were presented to children. The experimenter would then prompt the children to create a plural for wug, which was almost invariably wugs [wʌgz]. The experiments were designed to see if English morphophonemics would be applied by children to novel words. They revealed that even at a very young age, children have already internalized many of the complex features of their language. A logatome is a short pseudoword or just a syllable which is used in acoustic experiments to examine speech recognition.

Nonsense syllables A logatome or nonsense syllable is a short pseudoword consisting most of the time of just one syllable which has no meaning of its own. Examples of English logatomes are the nonsense words snarp or bluck . Like other pseudowords, logatomes obey all the phonotactic rules of a specific language. Logatomes are used in particular in acoustic experiments[1] They are also used in experiments in the psychology of learning as a way to examine speech recognition.[2] and in experimental psychology, especially the psychology of learning and memory. Nonsense syllables were first introduced by Hermann Ebbinghaus[3] in his experiments on the learning of lists. His intention was that they would form a standard stimulus so that experiments would be reproducible. However, with increasing use it became apparent that different nonsense syllables were learned at very different rates, even when they had the same superficial structure. Glaze[4] introduced the concept of association value to describe these differences, which turned out to be reliable between people and situations. Since Glaze's time, experiments using nonsense syllables typically control association value in order to reduce variability in results between stimuli. Nonsense syllables can vary in structure. The most used are the so-called CVC syllables, composed of a consonant, a vowel, and a consonant. These have the advantage that nearly all are pronounceable, that is, they fit the phonotactics of any language that uses closed syllables, such as English and German. They are often described as "CVC trigrams", reflecting their three-letter structure. Obviously many other structures are possible, and can be described on the same principles, e.g. VC, VCV, CVCV. But the CVC trigrams have been studied most intensively; for example, Glaze determined association values for 2019 of them. The term nonsense syllable is widely used to describe non-lexical vocables used in music, most notably in scat singing but also in many other forms of vocal music. Although such usages do not invoke the technical issues about structure and associability that are of concern in psychology, the essential meaning of the term is the same.

93

Pseudoword

94

References [1] Welge-Lüßen, Antje; Hauser, R.; Erdmann, J.; Schwob, Ch.; Probst, R. (2008). "Sprachaudiometrie mit Logatomen*". Laryngo-Rhino-Otologie 76 (02): 57 – 64. doi:10.1055/s-2007-997389. [2] Scharenborg, O (2007). "Reaching over the gap: A review of efforts to link human and automatic speech recognition research". Speech Communication 49 (5): 336 – 347. doi:10.1016/j.specom.2007.01.009. [3] Ebbinghaus, H. (1964). Memory. New York: Dover. (Originally published 1885.) [4] Glaze, J. A. (1928). The association value of non-sense syllables. Pedagogical Seminary and Journal of Genetic Psychology, 35, 255-269.

Psychological statistics Psychological statistics

is the application of statistics to psychology. Some of the more common applications

include: 1. psychometrics 2. learning theory 3. perception 4. human development 5. abnormal psychology 6. Personality test 7. psychological tests Some of the more commonly used statistical tests in psychology are: Parametric tests

• Student's t-test • analysis of variance (ANOVA) • ANCOVA (Analysis of Covariance) • MANOVA (Multivariate Analysis of Variance) • regression analysis • linear regression • hierarchical linear modelling • correlation • Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient • Spearman's rank correlation coefficient Non-parametric tests

• chi-square • Mann – Whitney U

Psychological statistics

References • Cohen, B.H. (2007) Explaining Psychological Statistics, 3rd Edition, Wiley. ISBN 978-0-470-00718-1 • Howell, D. (2009) Statistical Methods for Psychology, International Edition , Wadsworth. ISBN 0-495-59785-6

External links • Charles McCreery’s tutorials on chi-square, probability and Bayes’ theorem for Oxford University psychology students [1] • Matthew Rockloff's tutorials on t-tests, correlation and ANOVA [2]

References [1] http:/ / www.celiagreen.com/ charlesmccreery.html [2] http:/ / psychologyaustralia.homestead.com/ index.htm

95

Psychomotor vigilance task

96

Psychomotor vigilance task Task Performance and Analysis Diagnostics

MeSH

D013647

[1]

Psychomotor Vigilance Task The Psychomotor Vigilance Task (hereafter ‘PVT’) is a sustained-attention, reaction-timed task that measures the speed with which subjects respond to a visual stimulus. Research indicates increased sleep debt or sleep deficit correlates with deteriorated alertness, slower problem-solving, declined psycho-motor skills, and increased rate of false responding. The PVT was championed by David F. Dinges and popularized by its ease of scoring, simple metrics, and convergent validity.[2] However, it was shown that motivation can counteract the detrimental effects of sleep loss for up to 36 hours.[3] How it works

The PVT is a simple task where the subject presses a button as soon as the light appears. The light will turn on randomly every few seconds for 5 – 10 minutes. The main measurement of this task is not to assess the reaction time, but to see how many times the button is not pressed when the light is on. The purpose of the PVT is to measure sustained attention, and give a numerical measure of sleepiness by counting the number of lapses in attention of the tested subject.[4] Screen shot of PEBL's Perceptual Vigilance Test

Where it has been used

The Psychomotor Vigilance Self Test on the International Space Station (Reaction Self Test) provides the crewmembers with feedback on neurobehavioral changes in vigilant attention, state stability, and impulsivity. It aids crewmembers to objectively identify when their performance capability is degraded by various fatigue-related conditions that can occur as a result of ISS operations and time in space (e.g., acute and chronic sleep restriction, slam shifts, extravehicular activity (EVA), and residual sedation from sleep medications). The test is ideal for use in space flight because unlike other cognitive tests, it is brief while being free of learning effects and aptitude difference that make interpretation of other measures difficult, as it has been successfully deployed in three NASA missions.[5]

Psychomotor vigilance task References [1] http:/ / www.nlm.nih.gov/ cgi/ mesh/ 2011/ MB_cgi?field=uid&term=D013647 [2] Dinges, D. I, & Powell, J. W. (1985). Microcomputer analysis of performance on a portable, simple visual RT task sustained operations. Behavioral Research Methods, Instrumentation, and Computers, 17, 652 – 655 [3] Loh, Sylvia; Nicole Lamond, Jill Dorrian, Gregory Roach, Drew Dawson (May 2004). "The validity of psychomotor vigilance tasks of less than 10-minute duration." . Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc (University of South Australia, Woodville, Australia) 36 (2): 339 – 346. doi:10.3758/BF03195580 . PMID 15354700 . Retrieved 2011-06-09. [4] Walker, M. P. (2009, October 21). *Sleep Deprivation III: Brain consequences – Attention, concentration and real life.* Lecture given in Psychology 133 at the University of California, Berkeley, CA [5] Boen, B. (n.d.). International space station. Retrieved from http:/ / www.nasa.gov/ mission_pages/ station/ research/ experiments/ Reaction_Self_Test.html

97

PsychoPy

98

PsychoPy PsychoPy

Developer(s)

Jonathan Peirce

Stable release

1.74.01 / July 2012

Operating system

Cross-platform

License

GNU GPL v3+

Website

www. psychopy.org

[1]

is an open source software package, written in Python programming language, for the generation of experiments for neuroscience and experimental psychology [2][3]. Unlike most packages it provides users with a choice of interface; generate experiments by writing Python scripts or through a graphical interface which will generate a script for them (or by a combination of the two). Its platform independence is achieved through the use of the wxPython widget library for the application and OpenGL for graphics calls. PsychoPy

History and versions • 2003: PsychoPy was originally written by Peirce as a proof of concept - that a high-level scripting language could generate experimental stimuli in real time (existing solutions, such as Psychtoolbox, had to pre-generate movies or use CLUT animation techniques). • 2003-2005: this was extended to be able to generate experiments in the author's lab at Nottingham University and made available as an open source project on the internet. At this time PsychoPy was a library (Python package) that could be imported by Python scripts. Installing was complex because of the dependencies. • 2006: An editor was added, so that users could use PsychoPy as an 'application' rather than a library • April 2009: Version 1.0 released, including all main features of the library (but with some bugs in the win32 installer) • September 2009: Version 1.50 released, including various bug fixes to the underlying library and preview of new GUI interface, to become PsychoPy2. This new interface, the Builder view, allowed users to generate a very wide range of experiments without a knowledge of programming. • April 2011: Used for both research and undergraduate teaching at various universities. Over 1500 users per month worldwide [4]. Still at Version 1.64 (not yet v2.00), due to remaining issues especially with the Builder interface.

PsychoPy

Key people • Jonathan Peirce • Jeremy Gray • Yaroslav Halchenko

References [1] [2] [3] [4]

http:/ / www.psychopy.org/ Peirce, J.W. (2007). PsychoPy - psychophysics software in Python. Journal of Neuroscience Methods 162:8-1 Peirce, J.W. (2008). Generating stimuli for neuroscience using PsychoPy. Frontiers in Neuroinformatics, 2: 10 Peirce "'PsychoPy usage" (http:/ / www.psychopy.org/ usage.php), PsychoPy usage, accessed April 26, 2011.

External links • PsychoPy home (http:/ / www.psychopy.org/ ) • googlecode project site (http:/ / code.google.com/ p/ psychopy/ ) • mailing list (http:/ / groups.google.com/ group/ psychopy-users)

PsyScope is a graphical user interface (GUI) software program that allows researchers to design and run psychological experiments. It runs on Apple Macintosh computers and was originally designed for use with the Mac OS 9 platform. PsyScope was originally developed by an interdisciplinary team of researchers at Carnegie Mellon University, including Jonathan Cohen, Matthew Flatt, Brian MacWhinney, and Jefferson Provost.[1][2] It has been ported to Mac OS X by a group of researchers and programmers coordinated by researchers at SISSA, Italy and the Pompeu Fabra University, Spain. It is still under active development. The program and its code are open source and freely available (see external link). It currently runs under Mac OS X Snow Leopard. With respect to its Mac OS 9 incarnation, PsyScope X has a much more complete control of movies and sounds, can interact with the underlying Unix environment, and allows researchers to design programs that use several external devices, such as response devices to record participants' responses, or Evoked potential and eye tracking recording devices. PsyScope

It is difficult to estimate exactly how many researchers use the program. Currently, no support exist for the Mac OS 9 version. However, many researchers in several well respected universities around the world use PsyScope X to generate and run psychology and neuropsychology experiments. Users of PsyScope X can share experiments, tips, and ideas via message boards dedicated to the software (see external link).

References [1] Cohen J.D., MacWhinney B., Flatt M., and Provost J. (1993). PsyScope: A new graphic interactive environment for designing psychology experiments. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 25(2), 257-271. [2] MacWhinney, B.; Cohen, J.; Provost, J. (1993). The PsyScope experiment-building system. Spatial Vision, 11(1), 99-101.

External links • PsyScope X Project Homepage at SISSA (http:/ / psy.cns.sissa.it/ ) • PsyScope X User List (http:/ / psy.cns.sissa.it/ sympa/ info/ psyscope)

99

Rat Park

Rat Park was a study into drug addiction conducted in the late 1970s (and published in 1980), by Canadian psychologist Bruce K. Alexander and his colleagues at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, Canada. Alexander's hypothesis was that drugs do not cause addiction, and that the apparent addiction to opiate drugs commonly observed in laboratory rats exposed to it is attributable to their living conditions, and not to any addictive property of the drug itself.[1] He told the Canadian Senate in 2001 that prior experiments in which laboratory rats were kept isolated in cramped metal cages, tethered to a self-injection apparatus, show only that "severely distressed animals, like severely distressed people, will relieve their distress pharmacologically if they can."[2] To test his hypothesis, Alexander built Rat Park, an 8.8 m2 (95 sq ft) housing colony, 200 times the square footage of a standard laboratory cage. There were 16 – 20 rats of both sexes in residence, an abundance of food, balls and wheels for play, and enough space for mating and raising litters.[3]:166 The results of the experiment appeared to support his hypothesis. Rats who had been forced to consume morphine hydrochloride for 57 consecutive days were brought to Rat Park and given a choice between plain tap water and water laced with morphine. For the most part, they chose the plain water. "Nothing that we tried," Alexander wrote, "... produced anything that looked like addiction in rats that were housed in a reasonably normal environment."[1] Control groups of rats isolated in small cages consumed much more morphine in this and several subsequent experiments. The two major science journals, Science and Nature, rejected Alexander, Coambs, and Hadaway's first paper, which appeared instead in Psychopharmacology, a respectable but much smaller journal in 1978. The paper's publication initially attracted no response.[4] Within a few years, Simon Fraser University withdrew Rat Park's funding. Rat Park

The disease model of drug addiction It is not disputed that some substances cause withdrawal symptoms after repeated use, leaving the user in distress if they stop using. Where scientists differ is over the extent to which certain substances can be said to rob the user of self control, causing not only withdrawal[5] — but a drug addiction, defined as "a behavioral pattern of drug use, characterized by overwhelming involvement with the use of a drug (compulsive use), the securing of its supply, and a high tendency to relapse after withdrawal."[5] In the 19th century, drug addiction was regarded as a sign of akrasia, immorality, or weakness of the will. However 20th century brain research replaced this moral model The disease model explains addiction with reference to the action with a disease model of addiction, according to which of drugs on the reward pathways in the limbic system. Researchers say that opiates cause changes in the mesolimbic dopaminergic addiction to a drug is a by-product of the chemical pathway that produce feelings of pleasure. (Image courtesy of the structure of the drug itself. According to social National Institute on Drug Abuse.) psychologist Stanton Peele, the disease model states that "[t]olerance, withdrawal, and craving are thought to be properties of particular drugs, and sufficient use of these substances is believed to give the organism no choice but to behave in these stereotypical ways."[6] This view of drug addiction is reflected in the policies of the War on Drugs and in slogans such as "Heroin is so good. Don't even try it once," or "Crack cocaine is instantly addictive."[1] Scientists adhering to the disease model believe that behavior is "the business of the brain," according to Avram Goldstein, Professor Emeritus of Pharmacology at Stanford University, and a leading researcher into drug

100

Rat Park addiction.[7] Goldstein writes that the site of action of heroin and all other addictive drugs is a bundle of neurons deep in the brain called the mesolimbic dopaminergic pathway, a reward pathway that mediates feelings of wanting and motivation. Within this pathway, heroin causes dopamine neurons to release dopamine, a neurotransmitter that determines incentive salience and causes the user to want more. Dopamine neurons are normally held in check by inhibitory neurons, but heroin shuts these down, allowing the dopamine neurons to become overstimulated. The brain responds with feelings of euphoria, but the stimulation is excessive, and in order to protect itself against this, the brain adapts by becoming less sensitive to the heroin.[7] This has two consequences, according to the disease model. First, more heroin is required to produce the high, and at the same time, the reward pathway becomes less sensitive to the effects of endorphins, which regulate the release of dopamine, so that without heroin, there is a persistent feeling of sickness. After repeated intake, the user becomes tolerant and dependent, and undergoes withdrawal symptoms if the heroin supply is terminated. As the feelings of withdrawal worsen, the user loses control, writes Goldstein, and becomes an addict.[7] Studies of isolated laboratory animals generally support the disease model

According to Alexander, the disease model makes either of two claims: • Claim A: All or most people who use heroin or cocaine beyond a certain minimum amount become addicted. • Claim B: No matter what proportion of the users of heroin and cocaine become addicted, their addiction is caused by exposure to the drug.[1] Several decades of animal studies have been seen as supporting these claims. Avram Goldstein wrote in 1979: "If a monkey is Image from the U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse of a rat provided with a lever, which he can press to self-administering a drug. Professor Avram Goldstein writes: "A rat addicted to heroin is not rebelling against society, is not a victim of socioeconomic self-inject heroin, he establishes a regular pattern circumstances, is not a product of a dysfunctional family, and is not a of heroin use — a true addiction — that takes criminal. The rat's behavior is simply controlled by the action of heroin priority over the normal activities of his life ... (actually morphine, to which heroin is converted in the body) on its brain." [7] Since this behavior is seen in several other animal species (primarily rats), I have to infer that if heroin were easily available to everyone, and if there were no social pressure of any kind to discourage heroin use, a very large number of people would become heroin addicts.[8] Twenty years later, Goldstein maintains the same position. In a paper delivered to a 1997 U.S. methadone conference, he wrote: "Every addictive drug used by people is also self-administered by rats and monkeys. If we arrange matters so that when an animal presses a lever, it gets a shot of heroin into a vein, that animal will press the lever repeatedly, to the exclusion of other activities (food, sex, etc.); it will become a heroin addict. A rat addicted to heroin is not rebelling against society, is not a victim of socioeconomic circumstances, is not a product of a dysfunctional family, and is not a criminal. The rat's behavior is simply controlled by the action of heroin (actually morphine, to which heroin is converted in the body) on its brain."[7] Against this, Alexander argues that the main evidence for the belief in drug-induced addiction comes from "the testimonials of some addicted people who believe that exposure to a drug caused them to 'lose control'," and from some "highly technical research on laboratory animals". He argues that this weak evidence has been embellished in the news media to the point where it has acquired the status of an unassailable fact, whereas the great bulk of historical and clinical evidence, he says, runs against it.[1] He writes that, although the use of opiates in the United

101

Rat Park States and England during the 19th century was greater than it is now, the incidence of dependence and addiction never reached one percent of the population and was declining at the end of the century.[1] In Britain, he writes that heroin has been widely used in medication for coughs, diarrhea, and chronic pain until the present day; in 1972, British doctors prescribed 29 kilograms of heroin to patients, which he writes amounts to millions of doses, yet a 1982 study of the statistics on iatrogenic addiction in the UK showed a "virtual absence" of such addicts.[9] Recent research confirms that many people use heroin regularly for years, for either recreational or medical purposes, without becoming addicted.[10]

The Rat Park experiments In Rat Park, Alexander built a short tunnel large enough to accommodate one rat at a time. At the far end of the tunnel, the rats could drink a fluid from one of two drop dispensers, which automatically recorded how much each rat drank. One dispenser contained a morphine solution and the other plain tap water. Alexander designed a number of experiments to test the rats' willingness to consume the morphine. Rats have a sweet tooth, so in "The Seduction Experiment," the researchers exploited the rats' A white Wistar lab rat apparent sweet tooth to test whether they could be enticed to consume morphine if the water was sweet enough. Morphine in solution has a bitter taste for humans, and appears to have the same effect on rats, Alexander writes, since they shake their heads and reject it as they do with bitter quinine solutions. The Seduction Experiment involved four groups of rats. Group CC was isolated in laboratory cages when they were weaned at 22 days of age, and lived there until the experiment ended at 80 days of age; Group PP was housed in Rat Park for the same period; Group CP was moved from laboratory cages to Rat Park at 65 days of age; and Group PC was moved out of Rat Park and into cages at 65 days of age. The caged rats (Groups CC and PC) took to the morphine instantly, even with relatively little sweetener, with the caged males drinking 19 times more morphine than the Rat Park males in one of the experimental conditions. But no matter how sweet the morphine became, the rats in Rat Park resisted it. They would try it occasionally — with the females trying it more often than the males — but invariably they showed a preference for the plain water. It was, writes Alexander, "a statistically significant finding."[1] He writes that the most interesting group was Group CP, the rats who were brought up in cages but moved to Rat Park before the experiment began. These animals rejected the morphine solution when it was stronger, but as it became sweeter and more dilute, they began to drink almost as much as the rats that had lived in cages throughout the experiment. They wanted the sweet water, he concluded, so long as it did not disrupt their normal social behavior.[1] Even more significant, he writes, was that when he added a drug called Naloxone, which negates the effects of opioids, to the morphine-laced water, the Rat Park rats began to drink it. In another experiment, he forced rats in ordinary lab cages to consume morphine for 57 days on end, giving them no liquid to drink other than the morphine-laced solution, then moved them into Rat Park, where he allowed them to choose between the morphine solution and plain water. They drank the plain water. He writes that they did show some signs of dependence, but no sign of addiction. There were "some minor withdrawal signs, twitching, what have you, but there were none of the mythic seizures and sweats you so often hear about ..."[3]:169 Alexander believes his experiments show that animal self-administration studies provide no empirical support for the theory of drug-induced addiction, and that the theory has no other strong basis in empirical science, although it has not been disproven. "The intense appetite of isolated experimental animals for heroin and cocaine in self-injection experiments tells us nothing about the responsiveness of normal animals and people to these drugs. Normal people can ignore heroin ... even when it is plentiful in their environment, and they can use these drugs with little likelihood

102

Rat Park of addiction ... Rats from Rat Park seem to be no less discriminating."[1]

Reaction to the experiment The two major science journals Science and Nature rejected Alexander's first paper, which was published in Psychopharmacology, a specialty journal. Several later studies did appear to confirm its findings — for example, Bozarth, Murray and Wise in 1989, also published in Pharmacology, Biochemistry and Behavior — but nothing came of those either. Writer Lauren Slater, Alexander's daughter-in-law, interviewed psychiatrist Herbert Kleber, director of the substance-abuse division of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Columbia University, and a former U.S. deputy drug czar, on what was wrong with Rat Park. He replied that the experiment was "ingenious," but suggested that Alexander may have distorted the data in the hope of provoking a public debate, and that the study had methodological flaws, though he did not state examples. Slater believes Rat Park's problem was that it was conducted in Vancouver, the "scholarly equivalent of the tundra."[3]:171 While the original experiment's results were not always reproduced[11] (though in this case, both caged and "park" rats showed a decreased preference for morphine, suggesting a genetic difference), the publications did draw attention to the idea that the environment that laboratory animals live in might influence the outcome in experiments related to addiction. As of 2006, papers from the series of experiments have been cited more than 100 times, and similar studies on the influence of living conditions on the consumption of other drugs have been published.[12] Alexander was disappointed by the reception, and still speaks of the experiments enthusiastically.[3]:170 Since 1985, Alexander has been exploring addiction in human beings by way of historical and anthropological studies of many cultures. His newest book, "The Globalisation of Addiction: A study in poverty of the spirit" argues that cultural dislocation of human beings instigates addictions of all sorts, including addictions that do not involve drugs, just as isolation instigates drug consumption in laboratory animals.

Related research Recent research has shown that an enriched environment may decrease morphine addiction in mice.[13] Enriched environments also decrease deficits in animal models of Parkinson's disease, [14] Huntington's disease,[15] and Alzheimer's disease.[16]

Notes [1] Alexander, Bruce K., (2001) "The Myth of Drug-Induced Addiction" (http:/ / www.parl.gc.ca/ 37/ 1/ parlbus/ commbus/ senate/ com-e/ ille-e/ presentation-e/ alexender-e.htm), a paper delivered to the Canadian Senate, January 2001, retrieved December 12, 2004. [2] Weissman, D. E. & Haddox, J. D. (1989). "Opioid pseudoaddiction: an iatrogenic syndrome," Pain, 36, 363 – 366, cited in Alexander 2001, op cit . [3] Slater, Lauren. (2004) Opening Skinner's Box: Great Psychological Experiments of the Twentieth Century, W.W. Norton & Company. [4] Alexander, B.K., Coambs, R.B., and Hadaway, P.F. (1978). "The effect of housing and gender on morphine self-administration in rats," Psychopharmacology, Vol 58, 175 – 179. PMID 98787 [5] Jaffe, J.H. Drug addiction and drug abuse. In: Gilman, A.G.; Goodman, L.S.; Rall, T.W.; Murad, F. (eds), The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics (7th edition), p 532 – 581. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1985. [6] Peele, Stanton. The Meaning of Addiction. Compulsive Experience and Its Interpretation. Lexington: Lexington Books, 1985, pp. 1 – 26. excerpt (http:/ / www.peele.net/ lib/ moa1.html) [7] Goldstein, Avram. "Neurobiology of Heroin Addiction and of Methadone Treatment" (http:/ / www.aatod.org/ 1998-3.html), American Association for the Treatment of Opioid Dependence, retrieved July 16, 2006. [8] Goldstein, Avram. "Heroin maintenance: A medical view. A conversation between a physician and a politician," Journal of Drug Issues, 9, 341 – 347, 1979. [9] Trebach, Arnold S. The Heroin solution, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1982, p. 83, cited in Alexander 2001 op cit . [10] Alexander, B.K.. "The Globalisation of Addiction: A study in poverty of the spirit." Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008, chap. 6. [11] Petrie, B.F., Psychol Rep. 1996, 78, 391 – 400. PMID 9148292 [12] M. M. Faraday, P. M. Scheufele, M. A. Rahman, N. E. Grunberg, Nicotine Tob Res. 1999, 1, 143 – 51, PMID 11072395

103

Rat Park [13] Sciencedirect.com (http:/ / www.sciencedirect.com/ science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WFG-4MXBFC5-1&_user=1510518& _coverDate=04/ 30/ 2007&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000053381& _version=1&_urlVersion=0& _userid=1510518& md5=4ef66824a4078f1d77000d9b0b262074) [14] Jneurosci.org (http:/ / www. jneurosci.org/ cgi/ content/ full/ 23/ 35/ 10999) [15] Sciencedaily.com (http:/ / www.sciencedaily.com/ releases/ 2004/ 03/ 040309072325. htm) [16] Sciencedaily.com (http:/ / www.sciencedaily.com/ releases/ 2007/ 04/ 070429154909. htm)

References • Alexander, Bruce K., (2001) "The Myth of Drug-Induced Addiction" (http:/ / www.parl.gc.ca/ 37/ 1/ parlbus/ commbus/ senate/ com-e/ ille-e/ presentation-e/ alexender-e.htm), a paper delivered to the Canadian Senate, January 2001, retrieved December 12, 2004. • Alexander, Bruce K. "The Roots of Addiction in Free Market Society" (http:/ / www.policyalternatives.ca/ publications/ reports/ roots-addiction-free-market-society), Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, April 2001. • Alexander, Bruce K. (2008). "The Globalisation of Addiction: A study in poverty of the spirit." Oxford: Oxford University Press. !SBN 0199230129 • Bozarth, M.A., Murray, A. & Wise, R.A. (1989) "Influence of housing conditions on the acquisition of intraveneous heroine and cocaine self-administration in rats, Pharmacology, Biochemistry, and Behavior , 33, 903 – 907. • Davies, J.B. (1992) The Myth of Addiction: An application of the psychological theory of attribution to illicit drug / www.psychedelic-library.org/ davies/ myth_of_addiction.htm) Harwood Academic Publishers, use, (http:/ Char, Switzerland • Goldstein, Avram. (1979) "Heroin maintenance: A medical view. A conversation between a physician and a politician," Journal of Drug Issues, 9, 341 – 347. • Goldstein, Avram. (1997) Neurobiology of Heroin Addiction and Methadone Treatment (http:/ / www.aatod.org/ 1998-3.html), a paper written for the 1997 American Association for the Treatment of Opioid Dependence methadone conference, retrieved December 12, 2004. • Goldstein, Avram. "Neurobiology of Heroin Addiction and of Methadone Treatment" (http:/ / www.aatod.org/ 1998-3.html), American Association for the Treatment of Opioid Dependence, retrieved July 16, 2006. • Jaffe, J.H. "Drug addiction and drug abuse," in Gilman, A.G.; Goodman, L.S.; Rall, T.W.; Murad, F. (eds),The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics (7th edition), p 532 – 581. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1985. • Jones, J. B. (1999) "The Use and Abuse of Drugs in Nineteenth-Century Tennessee History (http:/ / www. netowne.com/ historical/ tennessee/ drugs.htm), retrieved December 12, 2004 • Peele, Stanton. The Meaning of Addiction: Compulsive Experience and its Interpretation , Lexington Books, Lexington, 1985, excerpt (http:/ / www.peele.net/ lib/ moa1.html) retrieved December 12, 2004 • Slater, Lauren. (2004) Opening Skinner's Box: Great Psychological Experiments of the Twentieth Century , W.W. Norton & Company, ISBN 0-393-05095-5 • Trebach, Arnold S. The Heroin solution, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1982. • Weissman, D. E. & Haddox, J. D. (1989). "Opioid pseudoaddiction: an iatrogenic syndrome," Pain, 36, 363 – 366. • Website of the U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse (http:/ / www.nida.nih.gov/ ) • Website of Drug Sense (http:/ / www.drugsense.org/ wodclock.htm) • Website of the American Association for the Treatment of Opioid Dependence (http:/ / www.aatod.org/ )

104

Rat Park

Further reading • Alexander, B.K., Beyerstein, B.L., Hadaway, P.F., and Coambs, R.B. (1981) "Effect of early and later colony housing on oral ingestion of morphine in rats," Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior , Vol 15, 4:571 – 576. PMID 7291261 • Alexander, B.K. (1985) "Drug use, dependence, and addiction at a British Columbia university: Good news and bad news," Canadian Journal of Higher Education , 15, 77 – 91. • Alexander, B.K. (1987) "The disease and adaptive models of addiction: A framework evaluation," Journal of Drug Issues 17, pp. 47 – 66. • Alexander, B.K. (1990) Peaceful measures: Canada's way out of the War on Drugs, Toronto University Press. ISBN 0-8020-6753-0 • Alexander, B.K. (2000) "The globalization of addiction," Addiction Research • Drucker, E. (1998) "Drug Prohibition and Public Health," U.S. Public Health Service, Vol. 114 • Goldstein, A. Molecular and Cellular Aspects of the Drug Addictions. Springer-Verlag, 1990. ISBN 0-387-96827-X • Goldstein, A. From Biology to Drug Policy, Oxford University Press, 2001. ISBN 0-19-514664-6 • Website of the U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy (http:/ / www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/ publications/ policy/ 03budget/ index.html) • Peele, Stanton. A discussion about addiction (http:/ / web.archive.org/ web/ 20040707104659/ http:/ / surreal. tripod.com/ drugaddiction.htm), archived link from July 7, 2004.

Rosenhan experiment The Rosenhan experiment was a famous experiment into the validity of psychiatric diagnosis, conducted by psychologist David Rosenhan and published by the journal Science in 1973 under the title "On being sane in insane places."[1] The study is considered an important and influential criticism of psychiatric diagnosis.[2] Rosenhan's study was done in two parts. The first part involved the use of healthy associates or "pseudopatients" (three women and five men) who briefly simulated auditory hallucinations in an attempt to gain admission to 12 different psychiatric hospitals in five different states in various locations St. Elizabeths psychiatric hospital, Washington, D.C., one of the sites of the Rosenhan experiment in the United States. All were admitted and diagnosed with psychiatric disorders. After admission, the pseudopatients acted normally and told staff that they felt fine and had not experienced any more hallucinations. All were forced to admit to having a mental illness and agree to take antipsychotic drugs as a condition of their release. The average time that the clients spent in the hospital was 19 days. All but one were diagnosed with schizophrenia "in remission" before their release. The second part of his study involved an offended hospital challenging Rosenhan to send pseudopatients to its facility, whom its staff would then detect. Rosenhan agreed and in the following weeks out of 193 new patients the staff identified 41 as potential pseudopatients, with 19 of these receiving suspicion from at least 1 psychiatrist and 1 other staff member. In fact Rosenhan had sent no one to the hospital.

105

Rosenhan experiment The study concluded, "It is clear that we cannot distinguish the sane from the insane in psychiatric hospitals" and also illustrated the dangers of dehumanization and labeling in psychiatric institutions. It suggested that the use of community mental health facilities which concentrated on specific problems and behaviors rather than psychiatric labels might be a solution and recommended education to make psychiatric workers more aware of the social psychology of their facilities. However, the study has been critiqued and accused of being pseudoscience presented as science.[3]

The pseudopatient experiment Rosenhan himself and seven mentally healthy associates, called "pseudopatients", attempted to gain admission to psychiatric hospitals by calling for an appointment and feigning auditory hallucinations. The hospital staffs were not informed of the experiment. The pseudopatients included a psychology graduate student in his twenties, three psychologists, a pediatrician, a psychiatrist, a painter and a housewife. None had a history of mental illness. Pseudopatients used pseudonyms, and those who worked in the mental health field were given false jobs in a different sector to avoid invoking any special treatment or scrutiny. Apart from giving false names and employment details, further biographical details were truthfully reported. During their initial psychiatric assessment, they claimed to be hearing voices of the same sex as the patient which were often unclear, but which seemed to pronounce the words "empty", "hollow", "thud" and nothing else. These words were chosen as they vaguely suggest some sort of existential crisis and for the lack of any published literature referencing them as psychotic symptoms. No other psychiatric symptoms were claimed. If admitted, the pseudopatients were instructed to "act normally", reporting that they felt fine and no longer heard voices. Hospital records obtained after the experiment indicate that all pseudopatients were characterized as friendly and cooperative by staff. All were admitted, to 12 different psychiatric hospitals across the United States, including rundown and underfunded public hospitals in rural areas, urban university-run hospitals with excellent reputations, and one expensive private hospital. Though presented with identical symptoms, 7 were diagnosed with schizophrenia at public hospitals, and one with manic-depressive psychosis, a more optimistic diagnosis with better clinical outcomes, at the private hospital. Their stays ranged from 7 to 52 days, and the average was 19 days. All were discharged with a diagnosis of schizophrenia "in remission", which Rosenhan takes as evidence that mental illness is perceived as an irreversible condition creating a lifelong stigma rather than a curable illness. Despite constantly and openly taking extensive notes on the behavior of the staff and other patients, none of the pseudopatients were identified as impostors by the hospital staff, although many of the other psychiatric patients seemed to be able to correctly identify them as impostors. In the first three hospitalizations, 35 of the total of 118 patients expressed a suspicion that the pseudopatients were sane, with some suggesting that the patients were researchers or journalists investigating the hospital. Hospital notes indicated that staff interpreted much of the pseudopatients' behavior in terms of mental illness. For example, one nurse labeled the note-taking of one pseudopatient as "writing behavior" and considered it pathological. The patients' normal biographies were recast in hospital records along the lines of what was expected of schizophrenics by the then-dominant theories of its etiology. The pseudopatients were required to get out of the hospital on their own by getting the hospital to release them, though a lawyer was retained to be on call for emergencies when it became clear that the pseudopatients would not ever be voluntarily released on short notice. Once admitted and diagnosed, the pseudopatients were not able to obtain their release until they agreed with the psychiatrists that they were mentally ill and began taking antipsychotic medications, which they flushed down the toilet. No staff member noticed that the pseudopatients were flushing their medication down the toilets and did not report patients doing this. Rosenhan and the other pseudopatients reported an overwhelming sense of dehumanization, severe invasion of privacy, and boredom while hospitalized. Their possessions were searched randomly, and they were sometimes

106

Rosenhan experiment observed while using the toilet. They reported that though the staff seemed to be well-meaning, they generally objectified and dehumanized the patients, often discussing patients at length in their presence as though they were not there, and avoiding direct interaction with patients except as strictly necessary to perform official duties. Some attendants were prone to verbal and physical abuse of patients when other staff were not present. A group of bored patients waiting outside the cafeteria for lunch early were said by a doctor to his students to be experiencing "oral-acquisitive" psychiatric symptoms. Contact with doctors averaged 6.8 minutes per day. "I told friends, I told my family, 'I can get out when I can get out. That's all. I'll be there for a couple of days and I'll get out.' Nobody knew I'd be there for two months … The only way out was to point out that they're [the psychiatrists] correct. They had said I was insane, 'I am insane; but I am getting better.' That was an affirmation of their view of me." — David Rosenhan in the BBC program "The Trap".[4]

The non-existent impostor experiment For this experiment, Rosenhan used a well-known research and teaching hospital, whose staff had heard of the results of the initial study but claimed that similar errors could not be made at their institution. Rosenhan arranged with them that during a three month period, one or more pseudopatients would attempt to gain admission and the staff would rate every incoming patient as to the likelihood they were an impostor. Out of 193 patients, 41 were considered to be impostors and a further 42 were considered suspect. In reality, Rosenhan had sent no pseudopatients and all patients suspected as impostors by the hospital staff were ordinary patients. This led to a conclusion that "any diagnostic process that lends itself too readily to massive errors of this sort cannot be a very reliable one". Studies by others found similarly problematic diagnostic results.

Impact and controversy Rosenhan published his findings in Science, criticizing the reliability of psychiatric diagnosis and the disempowering and demeaning nature of patient care experienced by the associates in the study. His article generated an explosion of controversy. Many defended psychiatry, arguing that as psychiatric diagnosis relies largely on the patient's report of their experiences, faking their presence no more demonstrates problems with psychiatric diagnosis than lying about other medical symptoms. In this vein, psychiatrist Robert Spitzer quoted Kety in a 1975 criticism of Rosenhan's study: If I were to drink a quart of blood and, concealing what I had done, come to the emergency room of any hospital vomiting blood, the behavior of the staff would be quite predictable. If they labeled and treated me as having a bleeding peptic ulcer, I doubt that I could argue convincingly that medical science does not know how to diagnose that condition.[5] Rosenhan replied that if they continue thinking that you still have an ulcer during x weeks despite having no other symptoms of ulcer, that makes for a big problem. Kety also argued that psychiatrists should not necessarily be expected to assume that a patient is pretending to have mental illness, thus the study lacked realism.[6] Rosenhan called this the "experimenter effect" or "expectation bias", something indicative of the problems he uncovered rather than a problem in his methodology.[7] The experiment "accelerated the movement to reform mental institutions and to deinstitutionalize as many mental patients as possible."[8]

107

Rosenhan experiment

Related experiments American investigative journalist Nellie Bly feigned symptoms of mental illness to gain admission to a lunatic asylum in 1887 and report on the terrible conditions therein. The results were published as Ten Days in a Mad-House. Maurice K. Temerlin split 25 psychiatrists into two groups and had them listen to an actor portraying a character of normal mental health. One group was told that the actor "was a very interesting man because he looked neurotic, but actually was quite psychotic" while the other was told nothing. Sixty percent of the former group diagnosed psychoses, most often schizophrenia, while none of the control group did so.[9] In 1988, Loring and Powell gave 290 psychiatrists a transcript of a patient interview and told half of them that the patient was black and the other half white; they concluded of the results that "Clinicians appear to ascribe violence, suspiciousness, and dangerousness to black clients even though the case studies are the same as the case studies for the white clients."[10] The science writer Lauren Slater may have conducted a very similar experiment for her 2004 book Opening [2] Skinner's Box. She claims to have presented herself at 9 different psychiatric emergency rooms with auditory hallucinations, resulting in being diagnosed "almost every time" with psychotic depression. However, when challenged to provide evidence of actually conducting her experiment, she could not.[11] In 2008, the BBC's Horizon science program performed a somewhat related experiment over two episodes entitled "How Mad Are You?". The experiment involved ten subjects, five living with previously-diagnosed mental health conditions, and five with no such diagnosis. They were observed by three experts in mental health diagnoses and their challenge was to identify the five with mental health problems.[12] The experts correctly diagnosed two of the ten patients, misdiagnosed one patient, and incorrectly identified two healthy patients as having mental health problems.[13]

References • Slater, Lauren (2004). Opening Skinner's Box: Great Psychological Experiments of the Twentieth Century . W. W. Norton. pp. 64 – 94. ISBN 0-393-05095-5. Notes [1] Rosenhan DL (January 1973). "On being sane in insane places" (http:/ / web.archive.org/ web/ 20041117175255/ http:/ / web.cocc.edu/ lminorevans/ on_being_sane_in_insane_places.htm). Science 179 (4070): 250 – 8. doi:10.1126/science.179.4070.250. PMID 4683124. Archived from the original (http:/ / web.cocc.edu/ lminorevans/ on_being_sane_in_insane_places.htm) on 2004-11-17. . [2] Slater, Lauren (2004). Opening Skinner's Box: Great Psychological Experiments of the Twentieth Century. W. W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-05095-5. [3] Spitzer, Robert L.. On Pseudoscience in Science, Logic in Remission, and Psychiatric Diagnosis: A Critique of Rosenhan's 'On Being Sane in Insane Places' . [4] An excerpt from the BBC program with this statement by David Rosen can be viewed here (http:/ / www.yoism.org/ ?q=node/ 234#laing). [5] Spitzer, Robert L. (October 1975). "On pseudoscience in science, logic in remission, and psychiatric diagnosis: a critique of Rosenhan's "On being sane in insane places"". Journal of Abnormal Psychology 84 (5): 442 – 52. doi:10.1037/h0077124. PMID 1194504. [6] http:/ / www.integratedsociopsychology.net/ sane_insane-place.html [7] "The Rosenhan experiment examined" (http:/ / frontierpsychiatrist.co.uk/ the-rosenhan-experiment-examined/ ), Frontier Psychiatrist [8] Kornblum, William (2011). Mitchell, Erin; Jucha, Robert; Chell, John. eds (Google Books). Sociology in a Changing World (http:/ / books. google.ca/ books?id=DtKcG6qoY5AC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false) (9th ed.). Cengage learning. p. 195. I SBN 978-1-111-30157-6. . [9] Temerlin, 1968. "Suggestion Effects in Psychiatric Diagnosis" (http:/ / journals.lww.com/ jonmd/ Citation/ 1968/ 10000/ Suggestion_Effects_in_Psychiatric_Diagnosis.3.aspx); Journal of Nervous & Mental Disease: October 1968 - Volume 147 - Issue 4 - ppg 349-353. [10] Loring M, Powell B (March 1988). "Gender, race, and DSM-III: a study of the objectivity of psychiatric diagnostic behavior". Journal of health and social behavior 29 (1): 1 – 22. doi:10.2307/2137177. JSTOR 2137177. PMID 3367027. [11] Moran, Mark (April 7, 2006). "Writer Ignites Firestorm With Misdiagnosis Claims" (http:/ / psychnews.psychiatryonline.org/ newsarticle. aspx?articleid=109856). Psychiatric News (American Psychiatric Association) 41 (7): 10 – 12. ISSN Online 1559-1255, Print 0033-2704. . Retrieved 2009-12-30.,

108

Rosenhan experiment [12] BBC Headroom Horizon: How Mad Are You? (http:/ / www.bbc.co.uk/ headroom/ tv_and_radio/ horizon_hmay.shtml) [13] How Mad Are You? - Spotlight (http:/ / www.spotlightradio.net/ listen/ how-mad-are-you/ )

External links • • • •

On being Sane in Insane Places (http:/ / www.bonkersinstitute.org/ rosenhan.html) Rosenhan experiment summary (http:/ / www.holah.karoo.net/ rosenhan.htm) Clip from the BBC's The Trap, 11th March 2007 (http:/ / www.youtube.com/ watch?v=Kq-7uvVOoyk) BBC Radio 4, "Mind Changers", Series 4 Episode 1: The Pseudo-Patient Study (http:/ / www.bbc.co.uk/ programmes/ b00lny48)

Rotarod performance test is a performance test based on a rotating rod with forced motor activity being applied, usually by a rodent. The test measures parameters such as riding time (seconds) or endurance. Some of the functions of the test include evaluating balance and coordination of the subjects; especially in testing the effect of experimental drugs.[1] The rotarod performance test

Rationale In the test, a rodent is placed on a horizontally oriented, rotating cylinder (rod) suspended above a cage floor, which is low enough not to injure the animal, but high enough to induce avoidance of fall. Rodents naturally try to stay on the rotating cylinder, or rotarod, and avoid falling to the ground. The length of time that a given animal stays on this rotating rod is a measure of their balance, coordination, physical condition, and motor-planning. The speed of the rotarod is mechanically driven, and may either be held constant, or accelerated.[2] A human analog to rotarod test might be "log rolling" competitions, where an individual must maintain balance on a log floating in the water that rotates with even minimal torques applied by the contestant. Hamster, gerbil, and mouse owners can observe the principle in action when an animal climbs on the outside of its wheel, instead of inside of it. In the rotarod test, however, the rotation of the cylinder in experiments is mechanically driven.

Scientific use The advantage of this test is that it creates a discretely measurable, continuous variable (length of time) that can be used for statistical purposes to quantify the effects of different drugs, conditions, and procedures. This test does not use subjective judgments of ability, and inter-rater reliability will be virtually perfect. Inter-laboratory reliability will only be achieved if the various parameters (size of cylinder, speed of cylinder, composition material of surface, and amount of practice/training given the animal) are also replicated.[3] The experiment is also very replicable from lab to lab (ibid). Moreover, these parameters may be adjusted variously to optimize the statistical separation of different conditions. For instance, alcohol effects on mice become less apparent when the speed is increased.[4] Because of concern for impairment in human motor behavior from the use of prescription medications, the rotarod test is frequently used in early stages of drug development [5] to screen-out drugs that might later cause subtle impairments, which might not be detected epidemiologically in a human population for a very long time. The test may be useful as a sensitive indicator of trauma induced by brain injury to laboratory rats. [6] Alcohol markedly impairs mouse performance in the rotarod test.[7] Research using the rotarod test with various chemical agonists and antagonists may help scientists determine which components of neurons mediate the effects of chemicals.[8] Testing of genetic knockout animals may help determine the genes most responsible for maintaining mammalian balance and coordination.[9] Comparing the performance of different animals with specific brain lesions helps scientists map which structures are critical for maintaining balance.[10]

109

Rotarod performance test

110

References [1] http:/ / medical.webends.com/ kw/ Rotarod%20Performance%20Test [2] J Pharm Pharmacol. 1968 Apr;20(4):302-4. The quantitative measurement of motor inco-ordination in naive mice using an accelerating rotarod. Jones BJ, Roberts DJ. [3] Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 March 4; 100(5): 2917 – 2922 Assessment of genetic susceptibility to ethanol intoxication in miceNathan R. Rustay,*† Douglas Wahlsten,‡ and John C. Crabbe [4] Rustay, M. R., Wahlsten, D. & Crabbe, J. C. (2003) Behav. Brain Res [5] Neuropsychopharmacology. 2008 Feb;33(3):574-87. Epub 2007 Apr 25. Stimulation of the beta3-Adrenoceptor as a novel treatment strategy for anxiety and depressive disorders. Stemmelin J, Cohen C, Terranova JP, Lopez-Grancha M, Pichat P, Bergis O, Decobert M, Santucci V, Françon D, Alonso R, Stahl SM, Keane P, Avenet P, Scatton B, le Fur G, Griebel G. [6] J Neurotrauma. 1994 Apr;11(2):187-96. The rotarod test: an evaluation of its effectiveness in assessing motor deficits following traumatic brain injury. Hamm RJ, Pike BR, O'Dell DM, Lyeth BG, Jenkins LW. [7] Neurotoxicology. 1981 Dec;2(4):765-87. Comparison of accelerod and rotarod sensitivity in detecting ethanol- and acrylamide-induced performance decrement in rats: review of experimental considerations of rotating rod systems. Bogo V, Hill TA, Young RW. [8] J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1994 Sep;270(3):958-72.

Multiple alpha-2 adrenergic receptor subtypes. II. Evidence for a role of rat R alpha-2A adrenergic receptors in the control of nociception, motor behavior and hippocampal synthesis of noradrenaline. Millan MJ, Bervoets K, Rivet JM, Widdowson P, Renouard A, Le Marouille-Girardon S, Gobert A. [9] J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2009 Apr;114(3-5):161-6. Epub 2009 Feb 6. Vestibular dysfunction in vitamin D receptor mutant mice. Minasyan A, Keisala T, Zou J, Zhang Y, Toppila E, Syvälä H, Lou YR, Kalueff AV, Pyykkö I, Tuohimaa P. Department of Anatomy, Medical School, University of Tampere, Finland. [email protected] [10] Behav Brain Res. 2007 Mar 28;178(2):235-43. Epub 2007 Jan 23.

Long-term evaluation of sensorimotor and mnesic behaviour following striatal NMDA-induced unilateral excitotoxic lesion in the mouse. Haelewyn B, Freret T, Pacary E, Schumann-Bard P, Boulouard M, Bernaudin M, Bouët V.

Small-world experiment The small-world experiment comprised several experiments conducted by Stanley Milgram and other researchers examining the average path length for social networks of people in the United States. The research was groundbreaking in that it suggested that human society is a small-world-type network characterized by short path-lengths. The experiments are often associated with the phrase "six degrees of separation", although Milgram did not use this term himself. The "six degrees of separation" model


Historical context of the small-world problem Guglielmo Marconi's conjectures based on his radio work in the early 20th century, which were articulated in his 1909 Nobel Prize address,[1] may have inspired Hungarian author Frigyes Karinthy to write a challenge to find another person to whom he could not be connected through at most five people.[2] This is perhaps the earliest reference to the concept of six degrees of separation, and the search for an answer to the small world problem. Mathematician Manfred Kochen and political scientist Ithiel de Sola Pool wrote a mathematical manuscript, "Contacts and Influences", while working at the University of Paris in the early 1950s, during a time when Milgram visited and collaborated in their research. Their unpublished manuscript circulated among academics for over 20 years before publication in 1978. It formally articulated the mechanics of social networks, and explored the mathematical consequences of these (including the degree of connectedness). The manuscript left many significant questions about networks unresolved, and one of these was the number of degrees of separation in actual social networks. Milgram took up the challenge on his return from Paris, leading to the experiments reported in "The Small World Problem" in May 1967 (charter) issue of the popular magazine Psychology Today , with a more rigorous version of the paper appearing in Sociometry two years later. The Psychology Today article generated enormous publicity for the experiments, which are well known today, long after much of the formative work has been forgotten. Milgram's experiment was conceived in an era when a number of independent threads were converging on the idea that the world is becoming increasingly interconnected. Michael Gurevich had conducted seminal work in his empirical study of the structure of social networks in his MIT doctoral dissertation under Pool. Mathematician Manfred Kochen, an Austrian who had been involved in Statist urban design, extrapolated these empirical results in a mathematical manuscript, Contacts and Influences, concluding that, in an American-sized population without social structure, "it is practically certain that any two individuals can contact one another by means of at least two intermediaries. In a [socially] structured population it is less likely but still seems probable. And perhaps for the whole world's population, probably only one more bridging individual should be needed." They subsequently constructed Monte Carlo simulations based on Gurevich's data, which recognized that both weak and strong acquaintance links are needed to model social structure. The simulations, running on the slower computers of 1973, were limited, but still were able to predict that a more realistic three degrees of separation existed across the U.S. population, a value that foreshadowed the findings of Milgram. Milgram revisited Gurevich's experiments in acquaintanceship networks when he conducted a highly publicized set of experiments beginning in 1967 at Harvard University. One of Milgram's most famous works is a study of obedience and authority, which is widely known as the Milgram Experiment.[3] Milgram's earlier association with Pool and Kochen was the likely source of his interest in the increasing interconnectedness among human beings. Gurevich's interviews served as a basis for his small world experiments. Milgram sought to devise an experiment that could answer the small world problem. This was the same phenomenon articulated by the writer Frigyes Karinthy in the 1920s while documenting a widely circulated belief in Budapest that individuals were separated by six degrees of social contact. This observation, in turn, was loosely based on the seminal demographic work of the Statists who were so influential in the design of Eastern European cities during that period. Mathematician Benoit Mandelbrot, born in Poland and having traveled extensively in Eastern Europe, was aware of the Statist rules of thumb, and was also a colleague of Pool, Kochen and Milgram at the University of Paris during the early 1950s (Kochen brought Mandelbrot to work at the Institute for Advanced Study and later IBM in the U.S.). This circle of researchers was fascinated by the interconnectedness and "social capital" of social networks. Milgram's study results showed that people in the United States seemed to be connected by approximately three friendship links, on average, without speculating on global linkages; he never actually used the phrase "six degrees of separation". Since the Psychology Today article gave the experiments wide publicity, Milgram, Kochen, and Karinthy all had been incorrectly attributed as the origin of the notion of "six degrees"; the most likely popularizer of

111

Small-world experiment the phrase "six degrees of separation" is John Guare, who attributed the value "six" to Marconi.

The experiment Milgram's experiment developed out of a desire to learn more about the probability that two randomly selected people would know each other.[4] This is one way of looking at the small world problem. An alternative view of the problem is to imagine the population as a social network and attempt to find the average path length between any two nodes. Milgram's experiment was designed to measure these path lengths by developing a procedure to count the number of ties between any two people. Basic procedure

1. Though the experiment went through several variations, Milgram typically chose individuals in the U.S. cities of Omaha, Nebraska and Wichita, Kansas to be the starting points and Boston, Massachusetts to be the end point of a chain of correspondence. These cities were selected because they were thought to represent a great distance in the United States, both socially and geographically.[2] 2. Information packets were initially sent to "randomly" selected individuals in Omaha or Wichita. They included letters, which detailed the study's purpose, and basic information about a target contact person in Boston. It additionally contained a roster on which they could write their own name, as well as business reply cards that were pre-addressed to Harvard. 3. Upon receiving the invitation to participate, the recipient was asked whether he or she personally knew the contact person described in the letter. If so, the person was to forward the letter directly to that person. For the purposes of this study, knowing someone "personally" was defined as knowing them on a first-name basis. 4. In the more likely case that the person did not personally know the target, then the person was to think of a friend or relative he knew personally who was more likely to know the target. He was then directed to sign his name on the roster and forward the packet to that person. A postcard was also mailed to the researchers at Harvard so that they could track the chain's progression toward the target. 5. When and if the package eventually reached the contact person in Boston, the researchers could examine the roster to count the number of times it had been forwarded from person to person. Additionally, for packages that never reached the destination, the incoming postcards helped identify the break point in the chain. Results

Shortly after the experiments began, letters would begin arriving to the targets and the researchers would receive postcards from the respondents. Sometimes the packet would arrive to the target in as few as one or two hops, while some chains were composed of as many as nine or ten links. However, a significant problem was that often people refused to pass the letter forward, and thus the chain never reached its destination. In one case, 232 of the 296 letters never reached the destination.[4] However, 64 of the letters eventually did reach the target contact. Among these chains, the average path length fell around five and a half or six. Hence, the researchers concluded that people in the United States are separated by about six people on average. Although Milgram himself never used the phrase "six degrees of separation", these findings are likely to have contributed to its widespread acceptance.[2] In an experiment in which 160 letters were mailed out, 24 reached the target in his Sharon, Massachusetts home. Of those 24, 16 were given to the target person by the same person Milgram calls "Mr. Jacobs", a clothing merchant. Of those that reached him at his office, more than half came from two other men.[5] The researchers used the postcards to qualitatively examine the types of chains that are created. Generally, the package quickly reached a close geographic proximity, but would circle the target almost randomly until it found the target's inner circle of friends.[4] This suggests that participants strongly favored geographic characteristics when choosing an appropriate next person in the chain.

112

Small-world experiment Critiques

There are a number of methodological critiques of the Milgram Experiment, which suggest that the average path length might actually be smaller or larger than Milgram expected. Four such critiques are summarized here: 1. Judith Kleinfeld argues[6] that Milgram's study suffers from selection and nonresponse bias due to the way participants were recruited and high non-completion rates. First, the "starters" were not chosen at random, as they were recruited through an advertisement that specifically sought for people who considered themselves as well-connected. Another problem has to do with the attrition rate. If one assumes a constant portion of non-response for each person in the chain, longer chains will be under-represented because it is more likely that they will encounter an unwilling participant. Hence, Milgram's experiment should underestimate the true average path length. Several methods have been suggested to correct these estimates; one uses a variant of survival analysis in order to account for the length information of interrupted chains, and thus reduce the bias in the estimation of average degrees of separation.[7] 2. One of the key features of Milgram's methodology is that participants are asked to choose the person they know who is most likely to know the target individual. But in many cases, the participant may be unsure which of their friends is the most likely to know the target. Thus, since the participants of the Milgram experiment do not have a topological map of the social network, they might actually be sending the package further away from the target rather than sending it along the shortest path. This may create a bias and overestimate the average number of ties needed for two random people. 3. A description of heterogeneous social networks still remains an open question. Though much research was not done for a number of years, in 1998 Duncan Watts and Steven Strogatz published a breakthrough paper in the journal Nature. Mark Buchanan said, "Their paper touched off a storm of further work across many fields of science" ( Nexus, p60, 2002). See Watts' book on the topic: Six Degrees: The Science of a Connected Age . 4. Some communities, such as the Sentinelese, are completely isolated, disrupting the otherwise global chains. Once these people are discovered, they remain more "distant" from the vast majority of the world, as they have few economic, familial, or social contacts with the world at large; before they are discovered, they are not within any degree of separation from the rest of the population. However, these populations are invariably tiny, rendering them of low statistical significance. In addition to these methodological critiques, conceptual issues are debated. One regards the social relevance of indirect contact chains of different degrees of separation. Much formal and empirical work focuses on diffusion processes, but the literature on the small-world problem also often illustrates the relevance of the research using an example (similar to Milgram's experiment) of a targeted search in which a starting person tries to obtain some kind of resource (e.g., information) from a target person, using a number of intermediaries to reach that target person. However, there is little empirical research showing that indirect channels with a length of about six degrees of separation are actually used for such directed search, or that such search processes are more efficient compared to other means (e.g., finding information in a directory).[8]

113


114

Influence The social sciences [9]

The Tipping Point by Malcolm Gladwell, based on articles originally published in The New Yorker ,

elaborates the "funneling" concept. Gladwell condenses sociological research which argues that the six-degrees phenomenon is dependent on a few extraordinary people ("connectors") with large networks of contacts and friends: these hubs then mediate the connections between the vast majority of otherwise weakly connected individuals. Recent work in the effects of the small world phenomenon on disease transmission, however, have indicated that due to the strongly connected nature of social networks as a whole, removing these hubs from a population usually has little effect on the average path length through the graph (Barrett et al., 2005). Mathematicians and actors

Smaller communities, such as mathematicians and actors, have been found to be densely connected by chains of personal or professional associations. Mathematicians have created the Erdős number to describe their distance from Paul Erdős based on shared publications. A similar exercise has been carried out for the actor Kevin Bacon and other actors who appeared in movies together with him — the latter effort informing the game "Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon". There is also the combined Erdős-Bacon number, for actor-mathematicians and mathematician-actors. Players of the popular Asian game Go describe their distance from the great player Honinbo Shusaku by counting their Shusaku number, which counts degrees of separation through the games the players have had.

Current research on the small-world problem The small-world question is still a popular research topic today, with many experiments still being conducted. For instance, Peter Dodds, Roby Muhamad, and Duncan Watts conducted the first large-scale replication of Milgram's experiment, involving 24,163 e-mail chains and 18 targets around the world.[10] Dodds et al. also found that the mean chain length was roughly six, even after accounting for attrition. A similar experiment using popular social networking sites as a medium was carried out at Carnegie Mellon University. Results showed that very few messages actually reached their destination. However, the critiques that apply to Milgram's experiment largely apply also to this current research. Network models

In 1998, Duncan J. Watts and Steven Strogatz from Cornell University published the first network model on the small-world phenomenon. They showed that networks from both the natural and man-made world, such as the neural network of C. elegans and power grids, exhibit the small-world phenomenon. Watts and Strogatz showed that, beginning with a regular lattice, the addition of a small number of random links reduces the diameter — the longest direct path between any two vertices in the network — from being very long to being very short. The research was originally inspired by Watts' efforts to understand the synchronization of cricket chirps, which show a high degree of coordination over long ranges as though the insects are being guided by an invisible conductor. The mathematical model which Watts and Strogatz developed to explain this phenomenon has since been applied in a wide range of different areas. In Watts' words:[11] "I think I've been contacted by someone from just about every field outside of English literature. I've had letters from mathematicians, physicists, biochemists, neurophysiologists, epidemiologists, economists, sociologists; from people in marketing, information systems, civil engineering, and from a business enterprise that uses the concept of the small world for networking purposes on the Internet." Generally, their model demonstrated the truth in Mark Granovetter's observation that it is "the strength of weak ties" that holds together a social network. Although the specific model has since been generalized by Jon Kleinberg, it

Small-world experiment remains a canonical case study in the field of complex networks. In network theory, the idea presented in the small-world network model has been explored quite extensively. Indeed, several classic results in random graph theory show that even networks with no real topological structure exhibit the small-world phenomenon, which mathematically is expressed as the diameter of the network growing with the logarithm of the number of nodes (rather than proportional to the number of nodes, as in the case for a lattice). This result similarly maps onto networks with a power-law degree distribution, such as scale-free networks. In computer science, the small-world phenomenon (although it is not typically called that) is used in the development of secure peer-to-peer protocols, novel routing algorithms for the Internet and ad hoc wireless networks, and search algorithms for communication networks of all kinds.

Milgram's experiment in popular culture Social networks pervade popular culture in the United States and elsewhere. In particular, the notion of six degrees has become part of the collective consciousness. Social networking websites such as Facebook, Friendster, MySpace, XING, Orkut, Cyworld, Bebo, and others have greatly increased the connectivity of the online space through the application of social networking concepts. The potential of the small world effect in linking likely but unknown collaborators using social networking was pointed out explicitly in The IRG Solution – hierarchical incompetence and how to overcome it in 1984.[12]

References [1] Guglielmo Marconi, 1909, Nobel Lecture, Wireless telegraphic communication (http:/ / www.nobelprize.org/ nobel_prizes/ physics/ laureates/ 1909/ marconi-lecture.pdf). [2] Barabási, Albert-László (http:/ / www.nd.edu/ ~alb/ ). 2003. " Linked: How Everything is Connected to Everything Else and What It Means for Business, Science, and Everyday Life. (http:/ / www.nd.edu/ ~networks/ Linked/ index.html)" New York: Plume. [3] http:/ / www.stanleymilgram.com/ milgram.php [4] Travers, Jeffrey & Stanley Milgram. 1969. "An Experimental Study of the Small World Problem." Sociometry, Vol. 32, No. 4, pp. 425-443. [5] Gladwell, Malcolm. "The Law of the Few". The Tipping Point . Little Brown. pp. 34 – 38. [6] Kleinfeld, Judith (March 2002). "Six Degrees: Urban Myth?" (http:/ / www.psychologytoday. com/ articles/ 200203/ six-degrees-urban-myth). Psychology Today (Sussex Publishers, LLC). . Retrieved June 15, 2011. [7] Schnettler, Sebastian. 2009. "A small world on feet of clay? A comparison of empirical small-world studies against best-practice criteria." Social Networks, 31(3), pp. 179-189, doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2008.12.005 [8] Schnettler, Sebastian. 2009. "A structured overview of 50 years of small-world research" Social Networks, 31(3), pp. 165-178, doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2008.12.004 [9] Six Degrees of Lois Weisberg (http:/ / www.gladwell.com/ 1999/ 1999_01_11_a_weisberg.htm) [10] http:/ / www.sciencemag.org/ cgi/ content/ full/ 301/ 5634/ 827 [11] Shulman, Polly (1 December 1998). "From Muhammad Ali to Grandma Rose" (http:/ / discovermagazine.com/ 1998/ dec/ frommuhammadalit1553). DISCOVER magazine. . Retrieved 13 August 2010. [12] The IRG Solution, Souvenir Press, ISBN 0-285-62662-0, 1984, page 217, chapter 12 http:/ / www.claverton-energy.com/ ?dl_id=364

External links • The Small World Experiment - 54 little boxes travelling the world (http:/ / smallworldexperiment.com) • Planetary-Scale Views on an Instant-Messaging Network (http:/ / arxiv.org/ abs/ 0803.0939v1) • Theory tested for specific groups: • The Oracle of Bacon at Virginia (http:/ / www.cs.virginia.edu/ oracle/ ) • The Oracle of Baseball (http:/ / www.baseball-reference.com/ oracle/ ) • The Erdős Number Project (http:/ / www.oakland.edu/ enp/ ) • The Oracle of Music (http:/ / www.pumpthemusic.com/ oracle/ ) • CoverTrek - linking bands and musicians via cover versions. (http:/ / covertrek.com/ ) • Science Friday: Future of Hubble / Small World Networks (http:/ / www.sciencefriday.com/ pages/ 2003/ Aug/ hour1_080803.html)

115

Small-world experiment • Knock, Knock, Knocking on Newton's Door (http:/ / www.dau.mil/ pubs/ dam/ 03_04_2005/ war-ma05. pdf) PDF (223 KiB) - article published in Defense Acquisition University's journal Defense AT&L, proposes "small world / large tent" social networking model.

Speech shadowing is an experimental technique in which subjects repeat speech immediately after hearing it (usually through earphones). The reaction time between hearing a word and pronouncing it can be as short as 254 ms[1] or even 150 ms.[2] This is only the delay duration of a speech syllable. While a person is only asked to repeat words, they also automatically process their syntax and semantics.[1] Words repeated during shadowing imitate the parlance of the words overheard more than the same words when read aloud by the subject.[3] Speech shadowing

Functional imaging finds that the shadowing of nonwords[4] occurs through the dorsal stream that links auditory and motor representations of speech through a pathway that starts in the superior temporal cortex, goes to the inferior parietal cortex and then the posterior inferior frontal cortex (Broca's area).[5] Speech shadowing was first used as a research technique by the Leningrad Group led by Ludmilla Andreevna Chistovich in the late '50s.[2][6] It has been used in research upon speech perception[1] and stuttering.[7]

Footnotes [1] Marslen-Wilson, W. (1973). "Linguistic structure and speech shadowing at very short latencies". Nature 244 (5417): 522 – 523. doi:10.1038/244522a0. PMID 4621131. [2] Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1985). "Speech shadowing and speech comprehension". Speech Communication 4: 55 – 51. doi:10.1016/0167-6393(85)90036-6. [3] Shockley, K.; Sabadini, L.; Fowler, C. A. (2004). "Imitation in shadowing words". Perception & psychophysics 66 (3): 422 – 429. PMID 15283067. PDF (http:/ / app.psychonomic-journals.org/ content/ 66/ 3/ 422.full.pdf) [4] Peschke, C.; Ziegler, W.; Kappes, J.; Baumgaertner, A. (2009). "Auditory – motor integration during fast repetition: The neuronal correlates of shadowing". NeuroImage 47 (1): 392 – 402. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.03.061. PMID 19345269. [5] Hickok, G.; Poeppel, D. (2004). "Dorsal and ventral streams: A framework for understanding aspects of the functional anatomy of language". Cognition 92 (1 – 2): 67 – 99. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2003.10.011. PMID 15037127. [6] Chistovich, L. A. (1998). "Speech research at the I. P. Pavlov Institute in Leningrad/St. Petersburg". The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 103 (5): 3024 – 3022. doi:10.1121/1.422540. [7] Harbison Jr, D. C.; Porter Jr, R. J.; Tobey, E. A. (1989). "Shadowed and simple reaction times in stutterers and nonstutterers". The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 86 (4): 1277 – 1284. PMID 2808903.

116


117

Stanford marshmallow experiment The Stanford marshmallow experiment [1] was a study on deferred gratification conducted in 1972 by psychologist Walter Mischel of Stanford University. A marshmallow was offered to each child. If the child could resist eating the marshmallow, he was promised two instead of one. The scientists analyzed how long each child resisted the temptation of eating the marshmallow, and whether or not doing so was correlated with future success [2]. The original study at Stanford has been cited some 400 times.[3] Marshmallows

Original experiment Origins

The experiment has its roots in an earlier one performed on Trinidad, where Mischel noticed that the different ethnic groups living on the island had contrasting stereotypes of one another, specifically, on the other's perceived recklessness, self-control, and ability to have fun. [4] This small (n= 53) study of male and female children aged 7 to 9 (35 Negro and 18 East Indian) in a rural Trinidad school involved the children in indicating a choice between receiving a 1c candy immediately, or having a (preferable) 10c candy given to them in one week's time. Mischel reported a significant ethnic difference, large age differences, and that "Comparison of the "high" versus "low" socioeconomic groups on the experimental choice did not yield a significant difference"[4]. Absence of the father was prevalent in the African-descent group (occurring only once in the East Indian group), and this variable showed the strongest link to delay of gratification, with children from intact families showing superior ability to delay. Stanford experiment

The purpose of the original study was to understand when the control of deferred gratification, the ability to wait to obtain something that one wants, develops in children. The original experiment took place at the Bing Nursery School located at Stanford University, using children the age of four to six as subjects. The children were led into a room, empty of distractions, where a treat of their choice (Oreo cookie, marshmallow, or pretzel stick) was placed on a table, by a chair.[1] The children could eat the marshmallow, the researchers said, but if they waited for fifteen minutes without giving in to the temptation, they would be rewarded with a second marshmallow.[1] Mischel observed as some would "cover their eyes with their hands or turn around so that they can't see the tray, others start kicking the desk, or tug on their pigtails, or stroke the marshmallow as if it were a tiny stuffed animal", while others would simply eat the marshmallow as soon as the researchers left.[1] In over 600 children who took part in the experiment, a minority ate the marshmallow immediately. Of those who attempted to delay, one third deferred gratification long enough to get the second marshmallow.[1] Age was a major determinant of deferred gratification.


Follow-up studies It was the results of the follow-up study that would take place many years later that surprised Mischel. Since Mischel's daughters knew and grew up with many of the original test subjects, through casual conversation, Mischel discovered there existed an unexpected correlation between the results of the marshmallow test, and the success of the children many years later.[2] The first follow-up study, in 1988, showed that "preschool children who delayed gratification longer in the self-imposed delay paradigm, were described more than 10 years later by their parents as adolescents who were significantly more competent". A second follow-up study, in 1990, showed that the ability to delay gratification also correlated with higher SAT scores.[2] A 2006 paper to which Mischel contributed reports a similar experiment, this time relating ability to delay in order to receive a cookie (at age 4) and reaction time on a Go/no go task.[5] From the study: [...] Surprisingly, findings did not indicate a relation between go/ no-go task performance and the number of seconds of waiting time measured in the preschool delay task more than 10 years earlier. The authors go on to say: the present findings suggest that an effective attentional control system, as reflected in preschoolers’ ability to direct attention away from tempting aspects of the rewards in a delay-of-gratification task, may share a common mechanism with, or serve as a precursor for, long-term ability to inhibit attentional and behavioral responses, as reflected years later in performance on the go/no-go task. Moreover, because inefficient performance in the go/no-go task has been well documented as being associated with immature development of fronto-striatal and related circuitry, the findings suggest that temptation focus in the delay-of-gratification task at age 4 may already be a marker of the subsequent development of individual differences in this system in adolescence and adulthood. A 2011 study of the same participants indicates that the characteristic remains with the person for life. Additionally, brain imaging showed key differences between the two groups in two areas: the prefrontal cortex (more active in high delayers) and the ventral striatum (an area linked to addictions).[6][7] A 2012 study at the University of Rochester altered the experiment by dividing children into two groups: one group was given a broken promise before the marshmallow test was conducted (the unreliable tester group), and the second group had a fulfilled promise before their marshmallow test (the reliable tester group). The reliable tester group waited up to four times longer (12 min) than the unreliable tester group for the second marshmallow to appear. []

References [1] Mischel, Walter; Ebbe B. Ebbesen, Antonette Raskoff Zeiss (1972). "Cognitive and attentional mechanisms in delay of gratification." (http:/ / psycnet.apa.org/ journals/ psp/ 21/ 2/ 204/ ). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 21 (2): 204 – 218. doi:10.1037/h0032198. ISSN 0022-3514. . [2] Shoda, Yuichi; Mischel, Walter; Peake, Philip K. (1990). "Predicting Adolescent Cognitive and Self-Regulatory Competencies from Preschool Delay of Gratification: Identifying Diagnostic Conditions" (http:/ / www.webcitation.org/ 62C0yfhcJ). Developmental Psychology 26 (6): 978 – 986. Archived from the original (http:/ / duende.uoregon.edu. / ~hsu/ blogfiles/ Shoda,Mischel,&Peake(1990).pdf) on October 4, 2011. . [3] Google Scholar, 2012) Source (http:/ / scholar.google.com/ scholar?cites=7548442247056473685& as_sdt=2005& sciodt=1,5&hl=en)}. [4] W. Mischel. (1958). Preference for delayed reinforcement: An experimental study of a cultural observation. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 56, 57-61 (http:/ / dx.doi.org/ 10.1037/ h0041895) [5] Eigste, Inge-Marie; Zayas, Vivian; Mischel, Walter; Shoda, Yuichi; Ayduk, Ozlem; Dadlani, Mamta B.; Davidson, Matthew C.; Aber, J. Lawrence et al. (2006). "Predicting Cognitive Control From Preschool to Late Adolescence and Young Adulthood" (http:/ / web.archive.org/ web/ 20070622160630/ http:/ / people.psych.cornell.edu/ ~pac_lab/ pdf/ (4)Eigsti,Zayas,etal.2006.pdf). Psychological Science 17 (6): 478 – 484. Archived from the original (http:/ / people.psych.cornell.edu/ ~pac_lab/ pdf/ (4)Eigsti,Zayas,etal.2006.pdf) on June 22, 2007. . [6] "Marshmallow Test Points to Biological Basis for Delayed Gratification" (http:/ / www.webcitation.org/ 62C1F65DW). Science Daily. September 1, 2011. Archived from the original (http:/ / www.sciencedaily.com/ releases/ 2011/ 08/ 110831160220. htm) on October 4, 2011.

118

Stanford marshmallow experiment . Retrieved October 4, 2011. [7] Casey, B. J.; L. H. Somerville, I. H. Gotlib, O. Ayduk, N. T. Franklin, M. K. Askren, J. Jonides, M. G. Berman, N. L. Wilson, T. Teslovich, G. Glover, V. Zayas, W. Mischel, Y. Shoda (August 29, 2011). "From the Cover: Behavioral and neural correlates of delay of gratification 40 years later" (http:/ / www.webcitation.org/ 62C1bpSDU). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108 (36): 14998 – 15003. doi:10.1073/pnas.1108561108. ISSN 0027-8424. Archived from the original (http:/ / www.pnas.org/ content/ 108/ 36/ 14998.full) on October 4, 2011. .

External links • "Joachim de Posada says, Don't eat the marshmallow yet" (http:/ / www.ted.com/ index.php/ talks/ joachim_de_posada_says_don_t_eat_the_marshmallow_yet.html) from Ted Talk

Stanford prison experiment The Stanford prison experiment was a study of the psychological effects of becoming a prisoner or prison guard. The experiment was conducted at Stanford University from August 14 to August 20 of 1971 by a team of researchers led by psychology professor Philip Zimbardo.[1] It was funded by the US Office of Naval Research[2] and was of interest to both the US Navy and Marine Corps as an investigation into the causes of conflict between military guards and prisoners. Twenty-four male students out of 75 were selected to take on randomly assigned roles of prisoners and guards in a mock prison situated in the basement of the Stanford psychology building. The participants adapted to their roles well beyond Zimbardo's expectations, as the guards enforced authoritarian measures and ultimately subjected some of the prisoners to psychological torture. Many of the prisoners passively accepted psychological abuse and, at the request of the guards, readily harassed other prisoners who attempted to prevent it. The experiment even affected Zimbardo himself, who, in his role as the superintendent, permitted the abuse to continue. Two of the prisoners quit the experiment early and the entire experiment was abruptly stopped after only six days. Certain portions of the experiment were filmed and excerpts of footage are publicly available.

Goals and methods Zimbardo and his team aimed to test the hypothesis that the inherent personality traits of prisoners and guards are the chief cause of abusive behavior in prison. Participants were recruited and told they would participate in a two-week prison simulation. Out of 70 respondents, Zimbardo and his team selected the 24 males whom they deemed to be the most psychologically stable and healthy. These participants were predominantly white and middle-class.[3] The group was intentionally selected to exclude those with criminal background, psychological impairments or medical problems. They all agreed to participate in a 7 to 14 day period and received $15 per day (roughly equivalent to $85 in 2011). The experiment was conducted in the basement of Jordan Hall (Stanford's psychology building). Twelve of the 24 participants were assigned the role of prisoner (9 plus 3 alternates), while the other twelve were assigned the role of guard (also 9 plus 3 alternates). Zimbardo took on the role of the superintendent, and an undergraduate research assistant the role of the warden. Zimbardo designed the experiment in order to induce disorientation, depersonalisation and deindividualisation in the participants. The researchers held an orientation session for guards the day before the experiment, during which they instructed them not to physically harm the prisoners. In the footage of the study, Zimbardo can be seen talking to the guards: "You can create in the prisoners feelings of boredom, a sense of fear to some degree, you can create a notion of arbitrariness that their life is totally controlled by us, by the system, you, me, and they'll have no privacy... We're going to take away their individuality in various ways. In general what all this leads to is a sense of powerlessness. That is, in this situation we'll have all the power and they'll have none."[4]

119

Stanford prison experiment The researchers provided the guards with wooden batons in order to establish their status,[5] clothing similar to that of an actual prison guard (khaki shirt and pants from a local military surplus store), and mirrored sunglasses to prevent eye contact. Prisoners wore uncomfortable ill-fitting smocks and stocking caps, as well as a chain around one ankle. Guards were instructed to call prisoners by their assigned numbers, sewn on their uniforms, instead of by name. The prisoners were arrested at their homes and charged with armed robbery. The local Palo Alto police department assisted Zimbardo with the arrests and conducted full booking procedures on the prisoners, which included fingerprinting and taking mug shots. They were transported to the mock prison from the police station, where they were strip searched and given their new identities. The small mock prison cells were set up to hold three prisoners each. There was a small space for the prison yard, solitary confinement, and a bigger room across from the prisoners for the guards and warden. The prisoners were to stay in their cells all day and night until the end of the study. The guards worked in teams of three for eight-hour shifts. The guards did not have to stay on site after their shift.

Results After a relatively uneventful first day, on the second day the prisoners in Cell 1 blockaded their cell door with their beds and took off their stocking caps, refusing to come out or follow the guards' instructions. Guards from other shifts volunteered to work extra hours in order to assist in subduing the revolt, and subsequently attacked the prisoners with fire extinguishers without being supervised by the research staff. Finding that handling nine cell mates with only three guards per shift was challenging, one of the guards suggested that they use psychological tactics to control them. They set up a "privilege cell" in which prisoners who were not involved in the riot were treated with special rewards, such as higher quality meals. The "privileged" inmates chose not to eat the meal in order to stay uniform with their fellow prisoners. After only 36 hours, one prisoner began to act "crazy", as Zimbardo described: "#8612 then began to act crazy, to scream, to curse, to go into a rage that seemed out of control. It took quite a while before we became convinced that he was really suffering and that we had to release him." Guards forced the prisoners to repeat their assigned numbers[6] in order to reinforce the idea that this was their new identity. Guards soon used these prisoner counts to harass the prisoners, using physical punishment such as protracted exercise for errors in the prisoner count. Sanitary conditions declined rapidly, exacerbated by the guards' refusal to allow some prisoners to urinate or defecate anywhere but in a bucket placed in their cell. As punishment, the guards would not let the prisoners empty the sanitation bucket. Mattresses were a valued item in the prison, so the guards would punish prisoners by removing their mattresses, leaving them to sleep on concrete. Some prisoners were forced to be naked as a method of degradation. Several guards became increasingly cruel as the experiment continued; experimenters reported that approximately one-third of the guards exhibited genuine sadistic tendencies. Most of the guards were upset when the experiment concluded after only 6 days. Zimbardo mentions his own absorption in the experiment. On the fourth day, some of the guards stated that they heard a rumor that the released prisoner was going to come back with his friends and free the remaining inmates. Zimbardo and the guards disassembled the prison and moved it onto a different floor of the building. Zimbardo himself waited in the basement, in case the released prisoner showed up, and planned to tell him that the experiment had been terminated. The released prisoner never returned, and the prison was rebuilt in the basement once again. Zimbardo argued that the prisoners had internalized their roles, since, even though some had stated that they would accept "parole" even if it would mean forfeiting their pay, they did not quit when their parole applications were all denied. Zimbardo argued they had no reason for continued participation in the experiment after having lost all monetary compensation, yet they did, because they had internalized the prisoner identity. Prisoner No. 416, a newly admitted stand-by prisoner, expressed concern over the treatment of the other prisoners. The guards responded with more abuse. When he refused to eat his sausages, saying he was on a hunger strike, guards confined him to "solitary confinement", a dark closet: "the guards then instructed the other prisoners to

120

Stanford prison experiment repeatedly punch on the door while shouting at 416."[7] The guards stated that he would be released from solitary confinement only if the prisoners gave up their blankets and slept on their bare mattresses, which all but one refused to do. Zimbardo aborted the experiment early when Christina Maslach, a graduate student he was then dating (and later married), objected to the conditions of the prison after she was introduced to the experiment to conduct interviews. Zimbardo noted that, of more than fifty people who had observed the experiment, Maslach was the only one who questioned its morality. After only six days of a planned two weeks' duration, the Stanford Prison experiment was discontinued.[8]

Conclusions On August 20, 1971, Zimbardo announced the end of the experiment to the participants. The results of the experiment have been argued to demonstrate the impressionability and obedience of people when provided with a legitimizing ideology and social and institutional support. The experiment has also been used to illustrate cognitive dissonance theory and the power of authority. The results of the experiment favor situational attribution of behavior rather than dispositional attribution. In other words, it seemed that the situation, rather than their individual personalities, caused the participants' behavior. Under this interpretation, the results are compatible with the results of the Milgram experiment, in which ordinary people fulfilled orders to administer what appeared to be agonizing and dangerous electric shocks to a confederate of the experimenter. Shortly after the study had been completed, there were bloody revolts at both the San Quentin and Attica prison facilities, and Zimbardo reported his findings on the experiment to the U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary.

Criticism The guards and prisoners adapted to their roles more than they were expected, stepping beyond the boundaries of what had been predicted, leading to dangerous and psychologically damaging situations. One-third of the guards were judged to have exhibited "genuine sadistic tendencies", while many prisoners were emotionally traumatized, as two of them had to be removed from the experiment early. After Maslach, a graduate student in psychology whom he was dating,[9] confronted him and forced him to realize that he had been passively allowing unethical acts to be performed under his supervision, Zimbardo concluded that both prisoners and guards had become grossly absorbed in their roles and realized that he had likewise become as grossly absorbed in his own, and he terminated the experiment.[10] Ethical concerns surrounding the experiment often draw comparisons to the Milgram experiment, which was conducted in 1961 at Yale University by Stanley Milgram, Zimbardo's former high school friend. Tom Peters and Robert H. Waterman, Jr. wrote in 1981 that the Milgram experiment and the Stanford prison experiment were frightening in their implications about the danger which lurks in the darker side of human nature.[11] Peer-review

Because of the structure of the experiment, Zimbardo found it impossible to keep traditional scientific controls in place. He was unable to remain a neutral observer, since he influenced the direction of the experiment as the prison's superintendent. Conclusions and observations drawn by the experimenters were largely subjective and anecdotal, and the experiment would be difficult for other researchers to reproduce. Critics such as Erich Fromm challenged the generalization of the experiment's results. Fromm specifically wrote that the personality of an individual does affect behavior when imprisoned, using historical examples from the Nazi concentration camps. This ran counter to the study's conclusion that the prison situation itself controls the individual's behavior. Fromm also argued that the amount of sadism in the "normal" subjects could not be determined with the methods employed to screen them.[12]

121

Stanford prison experiment Biases

Some of the experiment's critics argued that participants were merely engaging in role-playing, basing their behavior on how they were expected to behave or modeling it after stereotypes about the behavior of prisoners and guards. In response, Zimbardo claimed that even if there was role-playing initially, participants internalized these roles as the experiment continued. In contrast to Zimbardo's claim that participants were given no instructions about how to behave, his briefing of the guards gave them a clear sense that they should oppress the prisoners. In this sense, the study was an exploration of the effects of tyrannical leadership. In line with this, certain guards changed their behavior because of their desire to conform to the behavior that Zimbardo was trying to elicit. Other criticisms

Additionally, the study has been criticized on the basis of ecological validity. Many of the conditions imposed in the experiment were arbitrary and may not have correlated with actual prison conditions, including blindfolding incoming prisoners, not allowing them to wear underwear, not allowing them to look out of windows and not allowing them to use their names. Zimbardo argued that prison is a confusing and dehumanizing experience and that it was necessary to enact these procedures to put the prisoners in the proper frame of mind; however, he conceded that it was difficult to know how similar the effects were to an actual prison, and that the experiment's methods would be difficult to reproduce exactly. Marco Reus said that the study placed undue emphasis on the cruelty of the guards, such as one who was nicknamed "John Wayne", and who said that he caused the escalation of events between guards and prisoners after he began to emulate a character from the Paul Newman film Cool Hand Luke. He further intensified his actions because he was nicknamed "John Wayne", even though he was trying to mimic actor Strother Martin, who had played the role of the sadistic Captain in the movie.[13] Most of the other guards were kinder and often did favors for prisoners. Also, it has been argued that selection bias may have played a role in the results. Researchers from Western Kentucky University recruited students for a study using an advertisement similar to the one used in the Stanford Prison Experiment, with some ads saying "a psychological study of prison life", and some without the words "prison life". It was found that students volunteering for a prison life study possessed dispositions toward abusive behavior.[14]

Comparisons to Abu Ghraib When the Abu Ghraib military prisoner torture and abuse scandal was publicized in March of 2004, many observers were immediately struck by its many similarities to the Stanford Prison experiment. Chief among them was Zimbardo himself, who paid close attention to the details of the story. He was dismayed by official military and government representatives' shifting the blame for the torture and abuses in the Abu Ghraib American military prison on to "a few bad apples" rather than acknowledging it as possibly systemic problems of a formally established military incarceration system. Eventually, Zimbardo became involved with the defense team of lawyers representing one of the Abu Ghraib prison guards, Staff Sergeant Ivan "Chip" Frederick. He was granted full access to all investigation and background reports, and testified as an expert witness in SSG Frederick's court martial, which resulted in an eight-year prison sentence for Frederick in October 2004. Zimbardo drew from his participation in the Frederick case to write the book The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil, published by Random House in 2007, which deals with the striking similarities between his own Stanford Prison Experiment and the Abu Ghraib abuses.[7]

122


Similar studies BBC prison study

Alex Haslam and Steve Reicher, psychologists from the University of Exeter and University of St Andrews, conducted the BBC Prison Study in 2002.[15] This was a partial replication of the Stanford Prison Experiment conducted with the assistance of the BBC, which broadcast events in the study in a documentary series called The Experiment . Their results and conclusions differed from Zimbardo's and led to a number of publications on tyranny, stress and leadership. Moreover, unlike results from the Stanford Prison Experiment, these were published in leading academic journals such as British Journal of Social Psychology, Journal of Applied Psychology , Social Psychology Quarterly and "Personality and Social Psychology Review". The BBC Prison Study is now taught as a core study on the UK A-level Psychology OCR syllabus. While Haslam and Reicher's procedure was not a direct replication of Zimbardo's, their study casts further doubt on the generality of his conclusions. Specifically, it questions the notion that people slip mindlessly into role and the idea that the dynamics of evil are in any way banal. Their research also points to the importance of leadership in the emergence of tyranny of the form displayed by Zimbardo when briefing guards in the Stanford experiment.[16][17] Experiments in the United States

The Third Wave was a 1967 recreation of Nazi Party dynamics by high school teacher Ron Jones in Palo Alto, California. Although the veracity of Jones' accounts has been questioned,[18] several participants in the study have gone on record to confirm the events.[19] In April 2007, it was reported that high school students in Waxahachie, Texas, who were participating in a role-playing exercise, fell into a similar abusive pattern of behavior as exhibited in the original Stanford experiment.[20]

In multimedia • In 1992, Quiet Rage: The Stanford Prison Experiment , a documentary about the experiment, was made available via the Stanford Prison Experiment website. The documentary was written by Zimbardo and directed and produced by Ken Musen.[21] • In 1977, Italian director Carlo Tuzii adapted the experiment to an Italian environment. Italian students made a film based on it, La Gabbia (The Cage). • The novel Black Box, written by Mario Giordano and inspired by the experiment, was adapted for the screen in 2001 by German director Oliver Hirschbiegel as Das Experiment . • In 2010, Inferno Distribution released the film The Experiment , which is a remake of the 2001 film. • In an October 2008 episode of the NBC television show Life, Detectives Crews and Reese investigated a murder that took place at a prison experiment loosely modeled on the Stanford Prison Experiment. • In the third season of the television series Veronica Mars, the experiment is recreated as an activity for a psychology class. The experiment goes awry, similar to the Stanford Prison Experiment. • The experiment was featured in a 2012 episode of Science's Dark Matters: Twisted But True in the documentary short "Creative Evil." • Broadening, a play in the 2012 Dublin Fringe Festival was based on the Stanford experiment.

123


Footnotes [1] The Stanford Prison Experiment - A Simulation Study of the Psychology of Imprisonment Conducted at Stanford University (http:/ / www. prisonexp.org/ psychology/ 41) [2] FAQ on official site (http:/ / www.prisonexp.org/ faq.htm) [3] Slideshow on official site (http:/ / www.prisonexp.org/ slide-4.htm) [4] C82SAD L07 Social Influence II The BBC Prison Experiment (handout).doc (http:/ / www.psychology.nottingham.ac.uk/ staff/ msh/ mh_teaching_site_files/ a_lectures/ C82SAD L07 Social Influence II The BBC Prison Experiment (handout).doc) [5] (http:/ / www.zimbardo.com/ downloads/ 1973 A Study of Prisoners and Guards, Naval Research Reviews.pdf) [6] http:/ / www.prisonexp.org/ psychology/ 11 [7] The Lucifer Effect website (http:/ / www.lucifereffect.com) [8] Zimbardo, P.G. (2007). The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil. New York: Random House. [9] Stanford University News Service - The Standard Prison Experiment (http:/ / www.stanford.edu/ dept/ news/ pr/ 97/ 970108prisonexp. html) [10] Stanford Prison Experiment - Conclusion (http:/ / www.prisonexp.org/ slide-31.htm) [11] Peters, Thomas, J., Waterman, Robert. H., "In Search of Excellence," 1981. Cf. p.78 and onward. [12] angelfire.com (http:/ / www.angelfire.com/ or/ sociologyshop/ frozim.html) [13] "John Wayne" (name withheld). Interview. "The Science of Evil." Primetime. Basic Instincts. KATU. 3 Jan. 2007. [14] Carnahan, Thomas; Sam McFarland (2007). "Revisiting the Stanford prison experiment: could participant self-selection have led to the cruelty?" (http:/ / www.pitt.edu/ ~bertsch/ Carnahan.pdf). Personality & social psychology bulletin 33 (5): 603 – 14. . [15] The BBC Prison Study (http:/ / www.bbcprisonstudy.org) [16] Interview (http:/ / education.guardian.co.uk/ academicexperts/ story/ 0,,1605313,00.html) at The Guardian [17] Interview (http:/ / www.offthetelly.co.uk/ interviews/ experiment.htm) at OffTheTelly [18] "The Third Wave, Evidence from the people who were there." (http:/ / geniebusters.org/ 915/ wave_statements.html) [19] "A Look at the Original Students of The Third Wave and Their Teacher Ron Jones, 40 Years Later" (http:/ / www.lessonplanmovie.com/ ) [20] "Holocaust Lesson Gets Out Of Hand" (http:/ / www.smh.com.au/ news/ world/ jews-and-germans-lesson-gets-out-of-hand/ 2007/ 04/ 11/ 1175971162172. html), Sydney Morning Herald, April 11, 2007. [21] Justice videos (http:/ / www.brcc.edu/ library/ videolist/ videojustice.html)

References • Carnahan, T. & McFarland, S. (2007). Revisiting the Stanford Prison Experiment: Could participant self-selection have led to the cruelty? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , Vol. 33, No. 5, 603-614. • Haney, C., Banks, W. C., & Zimbardo, P. G. (1973). Study of prisoners and guards in a simulated prison. Naval Research Reviews, 9, 1 – 17. Washington, DC: Office of Naval Research • Haney, C., Banks, W. C., & Zimbardo, P. G. (1973). Interpersonal dynamics in a simulated prison. International Journal of Criminology and Penology, 1, 69 – 97. • Haslam, S. A., & Reicher, S. D. (2003). Beyond Stanford: Questioning a role-based explanation of tyranny. Dialogue (Bulletin of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology), 18, 22 – 25. • Haslam, S. A., & Reicher, S. D. (2006). Stressing the group: Social identity and the unfolding dynamics of responses to stress. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1037-1052. • Haslam, S. A. & Reicher, S. D. (2012). When prisoners take over the prison: A social psychology of resistance. Personality and Social Psychology Review 154-179. • Musen, K. & Zimbardo, P. G. (1991). Quiet rage: The Stanford prison study. Videorecording. Stanford, CA: Psychology Dept., Stanford University. • Reicher, S. D.., & Haslam, S. A. (2006). Rethinking the psychology of tyranny: The BBC Prison Study. British Journal of Social Psychology, 45, 1 – 40. • Zimbardo, P. G. (1971). The power and pathology of imprisonment. Congressional Record. (Serial No. 15, 1971-10-25). Hearings before Subcommittee No. 3, of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Ninety-Second Congress, First Session on Corrections, Part II, Prisons, Prison Reform and Prisoner's Rights: California. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. • Zimbardo, P. G (2007) Understanding How Good People Turn Evil (http:/ / www.democracynow.org/ article. pl?sid=07/ 03/ 30/ 1335257). Interview transcript. "Democracy Now!", March 30, 2007. Accessed March 31, 2007.

124


External links • Official website (http:/ / www.prisonexp.org/ ) • Summary of the experiment (http:/ / www.holah.karoo.net/ zimbardostudy.htm) • Interviews with guards, prisoners, and researchers in July/August 2011 Stanford Magazine (http:/ / www. stanfordalumni.org/ news/ magazine/ 2011/ julaug/ features/ spe.html) • Zimbardo, P. (2007). From Heavens to Hells to Heroes (http:/ / www.in-mind.org/ special-issue/ from-heavens-to-hells-to-heroes.html). In-Mind Magazine. • The official website of the BBC Prison Study (http:/ / www.bbcprisonstudy.org) • The Experiment (IMDb) (http:/ / www.imdb.com/ title/ tt0250258/ ) — German movie (Das Experiment) from 2001 inspired by the Stanford Experiment • The Lie of the Stanford Prison Experiment (http:/ / www.stanforddaily.com/ 2005/ 04/ 28/ the-lie-of-the-stanford-prison-experiment/ ) — Criticism from Carlo Prescott, ex-con and consultant/assistant for the experiment • The Artificial Prison of the Human Mind (http:/ / www.damninteresting.com/ ?p=443) Article with Comments. • Philip Zimbardo on Democracy Now! March 30 2007 (http:/ / www.democracynow.org/ article.pl?sid=07/ 03/ 30/ 1335257) • Philip Zimbardo on The Daily Show, March 2007 (http:/ / www.thedailyshow.com/ watch/ thu-march-29-2007/ philip-zimbardo) • BBC news article - 40 years on, with video of Philip Zimbardo (http:/ / www.bbc.co.uk/ news/ world-us-canada-14564182) • Philip G. Zimbardo Papers (Stanford University Archives) (http:/ / www.oac.cdlib.org/ findaid/ ark:/ 13030/ kt7f59s371) Abu Ghraib and the experiment:

• BBC News: Is it in anyone to abuse a captive? (http:/ / news.bbc.co.uk/ 1/ hi/ magazine/ 3683115.stm) • BBC News: Why everyone's not a torturer (http:/ / news.bbc.co.uk/ 1/ hi/ magazine/ 3700209.stm) • Ronald Hilton: US soldiers' bad behavior and Stanford Prison Experiment (http:/ / wais.stanford.edu/ War/ war_05152004.htm) • Slate.com: Situationist Ethics: The Stanford Prison Experiment doesn't explain Abu Ghraib (http:/ / www.slate. com/ id/ 2100419/ ), by William Saletan • IMDb: Untitled Stanford Prison Experiment Project (http:/ / www.imdb.com/ title/ tt0420293/ ) • VIDEO: Talk to MIT re: new book: The Lucifer Effect (http:/ / mitworld.mit.edu/ video/ 459/ ) • Psychology Articles for Undergrad Degree and A-Level Study (http:/ / www.simplypsychology.org/ zimbardo. html)

125


126

Tail suspension test Animal testing

Main articles


Biomedical Research Animal rights/Animal welfare Animals (Scientific Procedures) Great ape research ban International trade in primates Controversial experiments Britches · Brown Dog affair


Companies

Jackson Laboratory Charles River Laboratories, Inc. Covance · Harlan Huntingdon Life Sciences UK lab animal suppliers Nafovanny · Shamrock


127 Groups/campaigns AALAS · AAAS · ALF

Americans for Medical Progress Boyd Group · BUAV Dr Hadwen Trust Foundation for Biomedical Research · FRAME National Anti-Vivisection Society PETA · Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine Primate Freedom Project Pro-Test SPEAK · SHAC Speaking of Research Understanding Animal Research Writers/activists

Tipu Aziz · Michael Balls Neal Barnard · Colin Blakemore Simon Festing · Gill Langley Ingrid Newkirk · Bernard Rollin Jerry Vlasak · Syed Ziaur Rahman Categories Animal testing · Animal rights



The tail suspension test (TST) is an experiment used to assay mood levels in rodents in scientific research. Changes in immobility time indicate changes in mood. It is widely used to detect potential antidepressant effects of drugs.

References

The Third Wave

The Third Wave was an experiment to demonstrate that even democratic societies are not immune to the appeal of fascism. It was undertaken by history teacher Ron Jones with sophomore high school students attending his "Contemporary World" history class[1] as part of a study of Nazi Germany.[3] The experiment took place at Cubberley High School in Palo Alto, California, during the first week of April 1967.timing Jones, unable to explain to his students how the German population could claim ignorance of the extermination of the Jewish people, decided to show them instead.[3] Jones started a movement called "The Third Wave" and told his students that the movement aimed to eliminate democracy.[1] The idea that democracy emphasizes individuality was considered as a drawback of democracy, and Jones emphasized this main point of the movement in its motto: "Strength through discipline, strength through community, strength through action, strength through pride."[1] The Third Wave [1][2]

The experiment was not well documented at the time. Of contemporary sources, the experiment is only mentioned in the Cubberley High School student newspaper The Cubberley Catamount . It is only briefly mentioned in two issues,[4][5] and one more issue of the paper has a longer article about this experiment at its conclusion.[1] Jones himself wrote a detailed account of the experiment some nine years afterwards[3] and more articles about the experiment followed, including some interviews with Jones and the original students.[2]

Chronology Jones writes that he started the first day of the experiment with simple things like proper seating, drilling the students until they were able to move from outside the classroom to their seats and take the proper seating position in less than 30 seconds without making a sound.[3] He then proceeded to enforce strict classroom discipline by emerging as an authoritarian figure and dramatically improving the efficiency of the class. The first day's session was closed with only a few rules, intending to be a one day experiment. Students had to be sitting at attention before the second bell, had to stand up to ask or answer questions and had to do it in three words or fewer, and were required to preface each remark with "Mr. Jones".[3] On the second day he managed to meld his history class into a group with a supreme sense of discipline and community.[3] Jones named the movement "The Third Wave", mis-stating the mythical belief that the third in a series of ocean waves is last and largest (which comes from a traditional sailors' saying that the ninth wave is the largest, as recited in Tennyson's The Coming of Arthur).[3] Jones made up a salute resembling that of the Nazi regime[1] and ordered class members to salute each other even outside the class. They all complied with this command.[3] The experiment took on a life of its own, with students from all over the school joining in: on the third day the class expanded from initial 30 students to 43 attendees. All of the students showed drastic improvement in their academic skills and tremendous motivation. All of the students were issued a member card and each of them received a special assignment (like designing a Third Wave Banner, stopping non-members from entering the class, etc.). Jones instructed the students on how to initiate new members, and by the end of the day the movement had over 200 participants.[3] Jones was surprised that some of the students started reporting to him when other members of the movement failed to abide by the rules.[3] On Thursday, the fourth day of the experiment, Jones decided to terminate the movement because it was slipping out of his control. The students became increasingly involved in the project and their discipline and loyalty to the project was outstanding. He announced to the participants that this movement was a part of a nationwide movement and that on the next day a presidential candidate of the movement would publicly announce existence of the movement. Jones ordered students to attend a noon rally on Friday to witness the announcement.[3] Instead of a televised address of their leader, the students were presented with an empty channel. After a few minutes of waiting, Jones announced that they had been a part of an experiment in fascism and that they all willingly created

128

The Third Wave a sense of superiority that German citizens had in the period of Nazi Germany. He then played them a film about the Nazi regime to conclude the experiment.[3] Two years after the experiment ended, Jones was fired from the school. The experiment was not stated to be the reason for his termination, nor was it denied as a reason.[6]

In psychology The psychology involved has been extensively studied in terms of youth gang behaviour and peer pressure, of which this experiment was a variant. There have been many analogies to youth terrorist organisations in Africa and the Middle East, organised by similar methods, in addition to the original Hitler Youth movement (on which the experiment was modeled).

In popular culture A full account of the experiment was given by Ron Jones in the 1980 edition of “The Next Whole Earth Catalog” on pp. 374 – 377. The events of the experiment were adapted into a 1981 TV special The Wave and a young-adult novelization by Todd Strasser, under the pen name Morton Rhue. The 2008 German film Die Welle transferred the experiment to a modern-day German classroom. In 2010, Jones staged a musical called The Wave, written with some of the students in the class.[7] On October 10, 2010, a film documentary, Lesson Plan, retelling the story of the Third Wave through interviews with the original students and teacher debuted at the Mill Valley Film Festival.[8] It was produced by Phillip Neel, another of Jones' students. Wings Cultural Society[9] presented the play The Wave, New Delhi, India, 2012.

Notes [4] In, which was published on Friday April 7, reports of "strange happenings in Mr. Jones' [...] classes" are mentioned without further detail, [1] which confirms that the movement was active, but not yet finished in the week starting on April 3, 1967. In, published on April 21 the experiment is dated "two weeks ago", which also puts the experiment in the first week of April - in fact it calls out "...Wednesday, April 5, the last day of the movement."

References [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]

The Catamount, Vol 11., No 14., page 3 (http:/ / www.cubberleycatamount.com/ Content/ 66-67/ Catamount Pages/ V11No14/ ) Article with participants recollection (http:/ / www.ronjoneswriter.com/ wave.html) Ron Jones's 2-part essay about The Third Wave (Internet Archive) The Catamount, Vol 11., No 13., page 2 (http:/ / www.cubberleycatamount.com/ Content/ 66-67/ Catamount Pages/ V11No13/ ) The Catamount, Vol 12., No 6., page 6 (http:/ / www.cubberleycatamount.com/ Content/ 67-68/ Catamount Pages/ V12No6/ ) Sam, Whiting. "'Wave' of lingering lessons." San Francisco Chronicle 30 Jan. 2010: E1. Newspaper Source Plus. Web. 19 Sept. 2012. In 'The Wave', ex-teacher Ron Jones looks back (San Francisco Chronicle) (http:/ / www.sfgate.com/ cgi-bin/ article.cgi?f=/ c/ a/ 2010/ 01/ 30/ DDM51BLIU1.DTL) [8] Ducey, Patricia. "Experiment in Fascism at an American High School: The Lesson Plan @ The Newport Beach Film Festival" (http:/ / www. libertasfilmmagazine.com/ experiment-in-fascism-at-an-american-high-school-the-lesson-plan-the-newport-beach-film-festival/ ). Libertas Film Magazine. . Retrieved May 12, 2011. [9] Wings Cultural Society (http:/ / www.ourwingss.blogspot.in/ )

129

The Third Wave

Further reading • Dawson, Jeff (31 August 2008), " The Wave shows how to turn children into Nazis (http:/ / entertainment. timesonline.co.uk/ tol/ arts_and_entertainment/ film/ film_reviews/ article4620115.ece)", Sunday Times. • Klink, Bill (April 21, 1967) "The Third Wave presents inside look at Fascism", The Cubberley Catamount (http:/ / www.cubberleycatamount.com/ ), Volume 11, No. 14, Page 3. (News article in Cubberley student newspaper, following the Third Wave Rally, including details regarding the rally and names of some individuals involved.) • Leler, Robin and Sakuma, Bernice. (April 7, 1967) The Cubberley Catamount (http:/ / www.cubberleycatamount. com/ ), Volume 11, No. 13, Page 2. Column entitled "Through the Tiger Eye". (Article in Cubberley student newspaper makes brief reference to the events of the "Third Wave".) • Strasser, T. (1981). The Wave. New York: Dell Publishing Co. • Williams, Sylvia Berry. (1970) Hassling. New York: Little, Brown. Page 51 in Chapter 7 "A Bill of Particulars on the USM".

External links • The original essay by Jones, 1976 (1972 is a typo) (http:/ / libcom.org/ history/ the-third-wave-1967-account-ron-jones) • Lesson Plan (http:/ / www.lessonplanmovie.com) Third Wave documentary film, as told by the original Third Wave students and teacher • The Wave Home (http:/ / www.thewavehome.com) Official Wave website - story history & FAQ by original Third Wave students • www.thewave.tk (http:/ / www.thewave.tk) includes information about novel, stage and screen adaptations of the story • The Western Neighborhoods Project (http:/ / outsidelands.org/ )'s short biography (http:/ / outsidelands.org/ jones.html) of Ron Jones • Mob Mentality Act 2 (RealAudio) (http:/ / www.thislife.org/ ra/ 158.ram) • SPIEGEL Article on the 2008 film (http:/ / einestages.spiegel.de/ static/ topicalbumbackground/ 1577/ nazis_fuer_fuenf_tage.html), Nazis für fünf Tage ("Nazis for five days") www.spiegel.de (German) • The Wave, the Musical (http:/ / www.thewavemusical.com) Canadian musical, circa 2000 • Whiting, Sam (January 30, 2010). "In 'The Wave,' ex-teacher Ron Jones looks back" (http:/ / www.sfgate.com/ cgi-bin/ article.cgi?f=/ c/ a/ 2010/ 01/ 30/ DDM51BLIU1.DTL). San Francisco Chronicle . Hearst Corp. Retrieved January 30, 2010.

130

131

The Three Christs of Ypsilanti

The Three Christs of Ypsilanti The Three Christs of Ypsilanti Cover of the first edition. Author(s)

Milton Rokeach

Country

United States

Language

English

Subject(s)

Psychology, Schizophrenia

Publisher

Knopf

Publication date

1964

Pages

336

ISBN

ISBN 0394703952 (1973 edition)

(1964) is a book-length psychiatric case study by Milton Rokeach, concerning his experiment on a group of three paranoid schizophrenic patients at Ypsilanti State Hospital[1] in Ypsilanti, Michigan. The book details the interactions of the three patients, Clyde Benson, Joseph Cassel, and Leon Gabor, who each believed himself to be Jesus Christ. The Three Christs of Ypsilanti

Synopsis To study the basis for delusional belief systems, Rokeach brought together three men who each claimed to be Jesus Christ and confronted them with one another's conflicting claims, while encouraging them to interact personally as a support group. Rokeach also attempted to manipulate other aspects of their delusions by inventing messages from imaginary characters. He did not, as he had hoped, provoke any lessening of the patients' delusions, but did document a number of changes in their beliefs. While initially the three patients quarreled over who was holier and reached the point of physical altercation, they eventually each explained away the other two as being mental patients in a hospital, or dead and being operated by machines.[2]

Editions was first published in 1964. Rokeach came to think that his research had been manipulative and unethical, and he offered an apology in the afterword of the 1984 edition of the book: "I really had no right, even in the name of science, to play God and interfere round the clock with their daily lives."[2] The book was recently re-published by New York Review of Books in 2011.[1] The Three Christs of Ypsilanti

References [1] Milton Rokeach (19 April 2011). The Three Christs of Ypsilanti (http:/ / books.google.com/ books?id=d26RLuu_pPIC). New York Review of Books. ISBN 978-1-59017-398-5. . Retrieved 24 June 2012. [2] "Jesus, Jesus, Jesus" (http:/ / www.slate.com/ articles/ health_and_science/ science/ 2010/ 05/ jesus_jesus_jesus.html). Slate Magazine. May 26, 2010. . Retrieved May 28, 2010.

Tone variator

Tone variator German psychologist William Stern invented the tone variator in 1897 to study human sensitivity to changes in pitch, going beyond the traditional psychophysical research of studying the sensitivity to differences in discrete tones. The instrument consists of an adjustable brass resonator, which is supplied with a constant flow of air across the opening at the top. Turning a graduated cam on the front of the apparatus raises or lowers a piston in the bottom of the resonator, changing the volume of its interior, thus altering the sounded pitch over a continuous range. The spiral-shaped cam is such that equal angles of rotation approximately correspond to equal changes in frequency. A dial on the front of the cam indicates the current resonance frequency and musical tone of the instrument. Subsequent improvements to the device include the addition by G. M. Whipple of a gasometer, in order to regulate the incoming air supply. A version of the device was also produced in which the bottom of the resonator was not displaced by a spiral, but by rack and pinion (see figure); in these, an eccentrically-operated pointer is used to indicate the frequency on the scale. The instrument has been used in demonstrations, for tuning other instruments, and for research in psychology and otology. According to Stern, his research in the "apperception of change" began a "decisive metamorphosis" in his understanding: The issue [apperception of change] was raised by a psycho-physical Tone variator by Max Kohl, Chemnitz, Germany proposition: I wanted to discover the 'sensitivity,' not as Fechner and his successors, for two barely distinguishable constant stimuli, but for the continuous change of one stimulus into another. At first I conceived the problem in purely sensationist terms, sought to determine thresholds experimentally, raised the question of the possible existence of 'transition feelings,' etc. Soon, however, the sphere of my inquiry widened in the direction of descriptive and humanistic problems. Stern, W. (1930). Autobiographical Essay in A History of Psychology in Autobiography, Murchinson, Carl (ed.) Vol. 1. Worchester Mass: Clarke University Press.

——

132

Tone variator

133

External articles and further reading General references • "Tone variator [1]". Brass Instrument Psychology . University of Toronto. URL accessed 2006-07-01. • Kohl, Max. Physical Apparatus [2] / Vol. II. Apparatus and Supplies for General Use. Introduction to Physics. Mechanics. Wave Theory. Acoustics. Optics. Heat. Meteorology. Cosmology.

Chemnitz, Germany. p 446.

Publications • W. Stern, Autobiographical Essay in A History of Psychology in Autobiography, Murchinson, Carl (ed.) Vol. 1. Worchester Mass: Clarke University Press. • Rand Evans, "The Just Noticeable Difference: Psychophysical instrumentation and the determination of sensory thresholds ". Proceedings of the Eleventh International Scientific Instrument Symposium, Bologna University, Italy, 9 – 14 September 1991. • Titchener, " Experimental Psychology, a Manual of Experimental Practice: Volume II ", Quantitative Experiments, Part II . Instructor’s Manual. New York: MacMillan. p. 139. • G. M. Whipple, " An analytic study of the memory image and the process of judgment in the discrimination of clangs and tones ". American Journal of Psychology, vol. 12, pp. 409 – 457; vol. 13, pp. 219 – 268. • Guy Montrose Whipple, " Studies in pitch discrimination [3]". American Journal of Psychology, Volume 14, pages 289 – 309, 1903 Tone variator with rack and pinion • RF Wyatt, " A New Instrument for Measuring Pitch Discrimination". The design. American journal of psychology, Volume 48, Issue 2, 1936. Pg 335. ISSN 0002-9556 • Beryl F. Love and Margaret K. Dawson, " The Variation in Sound Intensity of Resonators and Organ Pipes with [4] Blowing Pressure ". Phys. Rev. 14, 49 – 53, Issue 1, July 1919. Websites • "Virtual Laboratory of Psychology: Instruments: Stern Variator [5]". fh-potsdam.de (ed. the viewer gives a rotating view of the image) • "Tone variator [6]". phys.cwru.edu. • "Stern’s Tone variator, 1897 [7]". scienceandsociety.co.uk.

References [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]

http:/ / www.psych.utoronto.ca/ museum/ sternv.htm http:/ / www.sil.si.edu/ digitalcollections/ trade-literature/ scientific-instruments/ files/ 51634/ http:/ / www.aruffo.com/ eartraining/ research/ articles/ whipple03.htm http:/ / prola.aps.org/ abstract/ PR/ v14/ i1/ p49_1 http:/ / www.design.fh-potsdam.de/ projects/ vlop01/ 02_instruments/ kehr_sternVariator/ index.html http:/ / www.phys.cwru.edu/ ccpi/ Tone_variator.html http:/ / www.scienceandsociety.co.uk/ results.asp?image=10324862&wwwflag=2&imagepos=3

Ulcers in Executive Monkeys

134

Ulcers in Executive Monkeys Ulcers in Executive Monkeys [1]

was a study into the effects of stress, published in 1958 in Scientific American by

Joseph V. Brady .

Method of the experiment In an early version of the study, Brady placed monkeys in 'restraining chairs' and conditioned them to press a lever [2] . They were given electric shocks every 20 seconds unless they pressed the lever during the same time period. This study came to an abrupt halt when many of the monkeys died from perforated ulcers. To test this Brady used a yoked control monkey. He placed an 'Executive Monkey' in the restraining chair, which could press the lever to prevent the electric shock. The yoked monkey had no control over the lever, leaving only the 'Executive' with the psychological stress of pushing the lever.

Results After 23 days of a 6 hours on, 6 hours off schedule to the electric shocks, the executive monkey died. Brady then tried various schedules, but no monkeys died from this. He then returned to the original 6 on, 6 off, and tested the stomachs of the Executives and found that their stomach acidity was greatest during the rest period. The greatest danger occurred when the sympathetic arousal stopped and the stomach was flooded with digestive hormones. This was a parasympathetic rebound associated with the Hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, which lead the development of ulcers in the Executive monkeys. In all the variations of the experiment, no yoked control monkey ever developed an ulcer. This suggests that the ulcers were a symptom of the excessive stress induced by having control. Hans Selye's General Adaptation Syndrome proposes a similar effect in the Exhaustion phase.

Notes [1] Brady, J. V. (1958). Ulcers in executive monkeys. Scientific American, 199(4), 95-100. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican1058-95 [2] Brady, J. V., Porter, R. W., Conrad, D. G., & Mason, J. W. (1958). Avoidance behavior and the development of duodenal ulcers. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1 (1), 69 – 72. doi:10.1901/jeab.1958.1-69

Vignette (psychology)

Vignette (psychology) A vignette in psychological and sociological experiments presents a hypothetical situation, to which research participants respond thereby revealing their perceptions, values, social norms or impressions of events. Peter Rossi and colleagues[1] developed a framework for creating vignettes by systematically combining predictor variables in order to dissect the effects of the variables on dependent variables. For example, to study normative judgments of family status, "there might be 10 levels of income; 50 head-of-housedhold occupations,and 50 occupations for spouses; two races, white and black; and ten levels of family size"[2]. Since this approach can lead to huge universes of stimuli - half a million in the example - Rossi proposed drawing small random samples from the universe of stimuli for presentation to individual respondents, and pooling judgments by multiple respondents in order to sample the universe adequately. Main effects of predictor variables then can be assessed, though not all interactive effects[3]. Vignettes in the form of sentences describing actions have been used extensively to estimate impression formation equations in research related to affect control theory[4]. In this case, different respondents are presented with each sentence, and some are asked to rate how the actor seems during the event, others rate the object of action, and other respondents rate how the overall action makes the behavior seem. Subgroups of respondents receive different sets of event sentences, and the subgroup data are pooled for final analyses. Vignettes enable controlled studies of mental processes that would be difficult or impossible to study through observation or classical experiments. However, an obvious disadvantage of this method is that reading a vignette is different from experiencing a stimulus or action in everyday life.

References [1] Rossi, Peter H., and Steven L. Nock, Eds. Measuring Social Judgments: The Factorial Survey Approach (Sage, 1982); Rossi, P. H., and Richard A. Berk (1985). "Varieties of normative consensus" American Sociological Review 50: 333-347 [2] Heise, David R. Surveying Cultures: Discovering Shared Conceptions and Sentiments (Wiley Interscience, 2010), p. 78 [3] Heise, D. R. Surveying Cultures, p. 79 [4] Heise, D. R., Surveying Cultures, pp. 86-120

135


Virtual reality cue reactivity (VRCR) is an innovative computer-enhanced methodology used to assess behavioral and physiological reactivity to drug and alcohol triggers (cues). Studies indicate that cue reactivity —a response to the presentation of various visual, auditory, olfactory, and tactile cues —increases physiological excitement in addicts.[1] VRCR utilizes virtual reality (VR) technology to stimulate cue reactivity in the most efficient and realistic environments possible; the intention being that coping skills can be taught in a contextual scenario that reflect a real world situation. While still in the early stages of development, studies have shown that VRCR is an effective means of generating a craving-inspiring environment that is tempting to a patient suffering from addiction. Virtual Reality Cue Reactivity

Use in addiction Studies have indicated that cue exposure in patients is closely related to increases in physiological responses. In addition, situational cues are also a leading cause in triggering relapse. People suffering from addiction have a tendency to attribute their addiction to specific scenarios or events.[2] For example, a smoker might have a habit of only smoking on his porch. Consequently, whenever he is near or around his porch, he connects it to smoking, and a craving is initiated by the mere proximity. This is an example of the classical conditioning theory, which describes how a specific cue can trigger an entirely separate reaction.[1] One of the most effective ways to avoid patient relapse is to instruct them on coping skills —ideally in the most detrimental cue exposure settings possible. The idea being that if patients can learn to deny their cravings in a controlled environment, denial in a real world environment will be easier.[3] Virtual reality helps to emulate a near lifelike situation, complete with sights, sounds, smells, and movement.[1]

How it works In order to create a lifelike environment, actors are filmed on a green screen doing many various activities such as smoking cigarettes, dancing, drinking alcohol, doing drugs, and other provocative actions. The actors are then integrated into a three-dimensional background, giving the impression that they are in a real environment. Virtual reality (VR) technology allows a user to be immersed in a computer-simulated environment by engaging the senses of a human body. As of now, visual and auditory are the two most common senses appealed to when creating a VR environment —mainly because they use simpler technologies that are much cheaper to develop.[2] However, advances in technology are allowing for a much more efficient way to appeal to the olfactory senses as well.

136

Virtual reality cue reactivity Visual senses

Arguably the most important facet in making a virtual environment seem real is an appeal to sight. A head-mounted display (HMD) is placed in front of the eyes of a patient like a pair of sunglasses, enabling for complete visual attention. A virtual environment is then displayed. A motion sensor inside the HMD tracks movement of the patient's head. If the patient tilts, or turns his head to view another part of the room, the environment adjusts accordingly. This allows for a more realistic experience by limiting restrictions of the head.[3] Auditory senses

A headset is placed around the ears of a patient that allows for sound to be heard. Generally, full surround-sound is desirable A head mounted display (HMD) being used at NASA. as it gives the patient a sense of space. For example, if a virtual person standing in front of the patient was speaking, the voice would be clear and audible. However, if a virtual person was standing to the left or right of the patient, the sound would be much quieter and muffled. Surround sound aids in giving a lifelike feeling to the VR environment.[3] Olfactory senses

Olfactory cues are presented by a computer-controlled device that releases scents in accordance with a patient's virtual environment. The device has multiple chambers with different scents in each, and uses an air compressor to blow specific scents into a patient's testing area. For example, if the patient were to approach a table with marijuana on it, he would also smell marijuana in real life. Other important scents used in VRCR include vanilla, pizza, coffee, whiskey, cigarette smoke, beer, and pine trees. The use of olfactory stimulation allows for a much more realistic virtual environment.[1]

Clinical use VR technology has been slowly gaining acceptance in a clinical environment. It is now used for treating specific phobias, pain management, eating disorders, and post-traumatic stress disorder. Studies have indicated that, "patients reported emotional and physiological arousal when immersed in VR, thus providing a tool for exposure in the treatment of psychological disorders".[1] VR technology also allows for a standardized testing environment that could greatly increase patient recovery rates.

137


Evolution In the past, cue reactivity has been used in labs to instruct patients in beneficial coping skills that help them to avoid relapse. Virtual reality technology allows for a more effective approach to trigger physiological arousal than the standard cue reactivity methods used previously —primarily, presentation of paraphernalia or actor-based simulation. Cue reactivity

Presentation of paraphernalia works by presenting a patient with physical items relative to their respective addiction. For example, an alcohol abuser might have a bottle of liquor placed in front of him, and a marijuana addict, a pipe. However, despite the fact that the objects are real, the environment in which they are presented is far from realistic. Learning how to turn down substances in a lab setting is much different than turning them down at an actual party —thus, the instructional process is limited.[4] Actor-based simulation

Another means of establishing a realistic situation is through actor-based simulation. Actors are hired, and stages are built to simulate what an actual situation might be like. Patients are able to interact with the actors in a realistic manner. While extremely lifelike and effective, efficiency is a major disadvantage. The actors are subject to availability, and must be paid for their services. Furthermore, stages are limited to constructed scenes that are not easy to change. Though more effective than standard presentation cue response, actor-based simulation is still limited.[1] Virtual reality technology

Virtual reality cue reactivity, though still in an early stage of development, is aimed at becoming a much more efficient version of an actor-based simulation.[5] The goal is to produce a system that will virtually simulate a given scenario while still allowing a patient to interact with the surroundings. The advantages include increased flexibility —an operator has the ability to produce virtually any scenario needed —as well as cheaper running costs because actors are no longer needed. The procedure is also much more accessible as actor availability is irrelevant.[1]

References [1] Bordnick, Patrick S., et al. "Assessing Reactivity to Virtual Reality Alcohol Based Cues." Addictive Behaviors, 33.6 (2008): 743-56. [2] Bordnick, Patrick S., et al. "Virtual Reality Cue Reactivity Assessment in Cigarette Smokers." CyberPsychology & Behavior 8.5 (2005): 487-92. [3] Lee, Jang Han, et al. "Experimental Application of Virtual Reality for Nicotine Craving through Cue Exposure." CyberPsychology & Behavior 6.3 (2003): 275-80. [4] Bordnick, Patrick S., et al. "Utilizing Virtual Reality to Standardize Nicotine Craving Research: A Pilot Study." Addictive Behaviors, 29.9 (2004): 1889-94. [5] Carter, Brian L., et al. "Location and Longing: The Nicotine Craving Experience in Virtual Reality." Drug & Alcohol Dependence 95.1 (2008): 73-80.

138

Water-level task

Water-level task The water-level task is an experiment in developmental and cognitive psychology[1][2][3][4][5] developed by Jean Piaget.[6][7] The experiment attempts to assess the subject's reasoning ability in spatial relations. To do so the subject is shown pictures depicting various shaped bottles with a water level marked, then shown pictures of the bottles tilted on different angles without the level marked, and the subject is asked to mark where the water level would be.

References [1] "The Water-Level Task: An Intriguing Puzzle", Ross Vasta and Lynn S. Liben, Current Directions in Psychological Science, Vol. 5, No. 6 (Dec 1996), pp 171-177; JSTOR subscription (http:/ / www. jstor.org/ stable/ 20182424) [2] "Sex-typing and spatial ability: The association between masculinity and success on piaget's water-level task", doi:10.1007/BF00287356 [3] "Sex differences on Piaget's water-level task: Spatial ability incognito", Eva Geiringer and Janet Hyde, Perceptual and Motor Skills Vol 42(3, Pt 2), Jun 1976, pp. 1323-1328 [4] "Individual differences in water-level task performance: A component-skills analysis", doi:10.1016/0273-2297(88)90007-X [5] "The Piagetian water-level task: Looking beneath the surface", Lynn S Liben Annals of child development, Vol. 8, pp. 81-143 [6] The Early Growth of Logic in the Child, Barbel Inhelder & Jean Piaget [7] "Can Spatial Training Erase the Gender Differences on the Water-Level Task?" doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1996.tb00321.x

Web-based experiments A Web-based experiment or "Internet-based experiment" is an experiment that is conducted over the Internet. Psychology and Linguistics are probably the disciplines that have used these experiments most widely, although a range of other disciplines use web-based experiments. Within Psychology most web-based experiments are conducted in the areas of Cognitive and Social Psychology[1][2]. This form of experimental setup has become increasingly popular because researchers can cheaply collect large amounts of data from a wide range of locations and people. A web-based experiment is a type of online research method.

Psychology Web experiments have been used to validate results from laboratory research and field research and to conduct new experiments that are only feasible if done online.[3] Further, the materials created for web experiments can be used in a traditional laboratory setting if later desired. Interdisciplinary research using web experiments is rising. For example, a number of psychology and law researchers have used the web to collect data. Lora Levett and Margaret Bull Kovera examined whether opposing expert witnesses are effective in educating jurors about unreliable expert evidence.[4] Rather than sensitizing jurors to flaws in the other expert's testimony, the researchers found that jurors became more skeptical of all expert testimony. In her experiment, this led to more guilty verdicts. Levett and Kovera's research used a written transcript (law) of a trial, which participants then read before making their decision. This type of stimulus has been criticized by some researchers as lacking ecological validity -- that is, it does not closely approximate a real-life trial. Many recommend the use of video where possible. Researchers at New York University are currently conducting a psychology and law study that uses video of a criminal trial.[5] Participants who go to the website can watch the trial (less than one hour long) and act as jurors. Researchers at University of Salford are currently conducting a study to explore the mood of theme music [6] Participants who go to the website listen and rate the moods of themes from the BBC archive. Sound experiments over the web are particularly difficult due to lack of control over sound reproduction equipment (see criticisms

139

Web-based experiments below). A wide range of psychology experiments are conducted on the web. The Web Experiment List provides a way to recruit participants and archives past experiments (over 700 and growing).[7] A good resource for designing a web experiment is the free Wextor tool, which "dynamically creates the customized Web pages needed for the experimental procedure" and is remarkably easy to use.[8]

Economics Laboratory experimentation has been a growing field in economics for the last decade or so. But the more experiments have been conducted in economics, the more the issue of an appropriate methodology and organization has been raised.[9]

Criticisms Some researchers have expressed concern that Web-based experiments have weaker experimental controls compared to laboratory-based ones. For instance, it may be difficult to be confident that the subjects characteristics are what they claim (e.g., age, race, gender, etc.) and that they are taking the experiment seriously. Others have argued (here [10] and here [11]) that brick-and-mortar experiments are just as affected by these problems, if not more so. Reips (2002) has produced a set of guidelines on standards for internet experimenting.[12]

References [1] Reips, U.-D. (2007). The methodology methodology of Internet-based Internet-based experiments. experiments. In A. Joinson, K. McKenna, T. Postmes, Postmes, & U.-D. Reips (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Internet Psychology (pp. 373-390). Oxford: Oxford University Press. [2] Reips, U.-D. & Krantz, J. (in press). Conducting Conducting true experiments experiments on the Web. Web. In S. Gosling & J. Johnson, Johnson, Advanced Internet Internet Methods in the Behavioral Sciences. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. [3] Ulf-Dietrich Reips, Standards Standards for Internet-Based Internet-Based Experimenting, Experimenting, 49 Experim. Experim. Psych. 243 (2002), available at http:/ / www.psychologie. www.psychologie. unizh.ch/ unizh.ch/ sowi/ sowi/ reips/ reips/ papers/ papers/ exppsy/ exppsy/ ExPsyReipsReprint.pdf. ExPsyReipsReprint.pdf. [4] Levett & Kovera, The Effectiveness Effectiveness of Opposing Expert Expert Witnesses for Educating Educating Jurors about Unreliable Unreliable Expert Evidence, 32 L. & Hum. Hum. Behav. 363 (2008), available at http:/ / www.ncbi. www.ncbi.nlm. nlm.nih. nih.gov/ gov/ pubmed/ pubmed/ 17940854. 17940854. [5] Virginia Virginia vs. vs. McNamara, McNamara, https: https:/ / / its.law. its.law.nyu. nyu.edu/ edu/ webexp/ webexp/ namara001/ namara001/ [6] [6] http http:/ :/ / www.musicalmoods. www.musicalmoods.org/ org/ [7] [7] http http:/ :/ / wexlist.net wexlist.net [8] [8] http http:/ :/ / wextor.org wextor.org [9] Ben Greiner,An Online Recruitment Recruitment System for Economic Experiments, http:/ http:/ / ockenfels.uni-koeln. ockenfels.uni-koeln.de/ de/ download/ download/ papers/ papers/ orsee_billing.pdf orsee_billing.pdf [10] [10] http http:/ :/ / www.newscientist. www.newscientist.com/ com/ blog/ blog/ shortsharpscience/ shortsharpscience/ 2007/ 2007/ 03/ 03/ virtual-labs-is-there-wisdom-in-crowd.html virtual-labs-is-there-wisdom-in-crowd.html [11] [11] http http:/ :/ / www.apa.org/ www.apa.org/ monitor/ apr00/ monitor/ apr00/ research.html research.html [12] Reips, U.-D. (2002). Standards Standards for Internet-based experimenting. experimenting. Experimental Experimental Psychology, 49 (4), 243-256.

External links • Reips and Lengler Lengler discus discusses ses experience experiencess (http:/ (http:/ / homepage.mac. homepage.mac.com/ com/ maculfy/ maculfy/ filechute/ filechute/ BSC515.pdf) BSC515.pdf) • WEXT WEXTOR OR (htt (httpp:/ / wextor.org) wextor.org) and Webexp (http:/ / www.webexp. www.webexp.info/ info/ ),), software for creating web-based experiments • Tuto Tutori rial al (htt (http: p:/ / / usir.salford.ac. usir.salford.ac.uk/ uk/ 12998/ 12998/ 1/ 1/ Public_Participation_in_Acoustics_Research_through_new_Technology_USIR.pdf) pdf) on public engagement through audio web experiments • face facere rese sear arch ch.o .org rg// (htt (http: p:/ / / faceresearch.org/ faceresearch.org/ )

140

Wike's law of low odd primes

Wike's law of low odd primes is a methodological principle to help design sound experiments in psychology. It is: "If the number of experimental treatments is a low odd prime number, then the experimental design is unbalanced and partially confounded" (Wike, 1973, pp. 192 – 193). 193). Wike's law of low odd primes

This law was stated by Edwin Wike in a humorous article in which he also admits that the association of his name with the law is an example of Stigler's law of eponymy. The lowest odd prime number is three. Wike illustrates how this yields an unbalanced design with an invented study in which researchers investigated the effects on sexual satisfaction satisfaction of water water beds. The fictitious researchers randomly assigned couples to three groups: those having sex on a conventional bed, those having sex on a water bed, and those having sex on a water bed having also taken a sea sickness pill. Wike pointed out that any differences in sexual satisfaction among the three groups could be due to the water bed or to the sea sickness pill. It requires a fourth group, couples taking the pill and using a conventional bed, to balance the design and to allow the researchers to attribute any differences in sexual satisfaction among the groups to the sort of bed, to the pill, or to their interaction.

References • Wike, E. L. (1973). (1973). "Water "Water beds and sexual sexual satisf satisfactio action: n: Wike’s law of low odd primes (WLLOP)". Psychological 194. Reports, 33, 192 – 194.

Wizards Project The Wizards Project (formerly called the Diogenes Project) was a research project conducted by Paul Ekman and Maureen O'Sullivan that studied the ability of people to detect lies told by others. O'Sullivan spent more than 20 years studying the science of lying and deceit. [1] The project was originally named after the Greek philosopher who would look into people's faces using a lamp, claiming to be looking for an honest man.

Synopsis A "Truth Wizard" is a person identified in the Wizards Project, who can identify deception with exceptional accuracy of at least 80% or higher, whereas the average person is only as good as a coin toss. No Truth Wizard, however, is 100% accurate. The term "wizard" refers to "a person of amazing skill or accomplishment"[2]. Scientists Dr. Maureen O'Sullivan and Dr. Paul Ekman, who led the Wizards Project [2] identified only 50 people as Truth Wizards after testing 20,000 people (about 0.25% of the tested population)[3] from all walks of life, including the Secret Service, FBI, sheriffs, police, attorneys, arbitrators, psychologists, students, and many others. Surprisingly, while psychiatrists and law enforcement personnel showed no more aptitude than college freshmen, Secret Service agents were the most skilled. Dr. Paul Ekman said on NPR that they "have found 50 who have this really nearly perfect ability to spot liars, and that's without any specialized training."[4] Dr. Maureen O'Sullivan from the University of San Francisco says, "Our wizards are extraordinarily attuned to detecting the nuances of facial expressions, body language and ways of talking and thinking. Some of them can observe a videotape for a few seconds and amazingly they can describe eight details about the person on the tape."[5] Scientists are currently studying Truth Wizards to identify new ways to spot a liar. Truth Wizards use a variety of clues to spot deception and do not depend on any one "clue" to identify a liar. Truth wizards have a natural knack for spotting microexpressions. They also home in on inconsistencies in emotion, body

141

Wizards Project language, and the spoken word with amazing skill. Dr. Paul Ekman said on NPR: "We're still trying to find out how in the world did they learn this skill? Are they the sort of Mozarts of lie detection; they just had it?"[4] Ekman claims that anyone can be trained to detect such microexpressions, and released a training CD for that purpose, based on data collected by Diogenes' collaborations with the truth wizards.

Controversies Psychologists Charles F. Bond and Ahmet Uysal from the Texas Christian University criticized the methodology used by Ekman and O'Sullivan and suspected suspected the performance of the reported reported Truth Wizards to be due to chance (a type I error), concluding that "convincing evidence of lie detection wizardry has never been presented" [6][7][8][9]. Gary D. Bond from Winston Salem State University later replicated the experiment using a more rigorous protocol and found two people to be exceptionally fast and accurate at lie detection out of 112 law enforcement officers and 122 undergraduate students, a result consistent with Ekman and O'Sullivan's [10]. Both experts at lie detection were female Native American BIA correctional officers. Dr. Maureen O'Sullivan responded to Dr. Charles F. Bond in "Unicorns "Unicorns or Tiger Woods: are lie detection experts myths or rarities? A response to on lie detection 'wizards' by Bond and Uysal" [11]. They critiqued a specific chapter which discusses the initial stages for a research program under way. They commented on two different issues in particular. Firstly, the scores of any "Truth Wizard" may have been a coincidence and secondly, the procedures used for testing does not meet the standards of classical psychometric class theory.[12] Drs. Paul Ekman, Mark Frank and Maureen O'Sullivan also published "Reply scoring and reporting: A response to Bond (2008)" [13]

In popular culture Ekman's work is the inspiration for the Fox TV series Lie to Me (2009 – 2011). 2011). One of the show's main characters, Ria Torres, is a "natural", otherwise known in Paul Ekman's and Maureen O'Sullivan's parlance as a Truth Wizard. One woman who claims to be a real life Truth Wizard [14] writes a blog on the web called Eyes for Lies [15], and also maintains a website [16]. She has been blogging for over seven years and writes about hot topics in the news. She shares her thoughts about what makes her suspect a liar.

References [1] [1] (htt (http: p:/ / / www.eurekalert. www.eurekalert.org/ org/ pub_releases/ pub_releases/ 2004-10/ ama-lad100804. 2004-10/ ama-lad100804.php) php) [2] Granhag, Granhag, Pär; Strömw Strömwall, all, Leid (2004) (2004).. The Detection of Deception in Forensic Contexts (http:/ / books.google. books. google.ca/ ca/ books?id=SF7zaHHkePUC). books?id=SF7zaHHkePUC). Cambridge University Press. p. 269. ISBN 0-521-54157-3. . [3] Camilleri, J. (January (January 21, 2009). 2009). "Truth Wizard knows when you've been lying" (http:/ / jcamillieri.files. jcamillieri.files.wordpress. wordpress.com/ com/ 2009/ 2009/ 01/ 01/ img0021. jpg). img0021. jpg). Chicago Sun-Times. . [4] The Face Never Never Lies (http:/ (http:/ / www.onthemedia. www.onthemedia.org/ org/ transcripts/ transcripts/ 2009/ 2009/ 01/ 01/ 23/ 23/ 08) 08) [5] Lying Lying and deceit deceit – The Wizards Project (http:/ / www.eurekalert. www.eurekalert.org/ org/ pub_releases/ pub_releases/ 2004-10/ ama-lad100804. 2004-10/ ama-lad100804.php) php) [6] Bond, Charles F & Uysal, Ahmet. Ahmet. (2007). On lie detection "wizards" "wizards" (http:/ / www.springerlink. www.springerlink.com/ com/ content/ content/ u3051220n573124w/ fulltext. u3051220n573124w/ fulltext. html). Law and human behavior, 31. [7] O'Sullivan, Maureen. (2007). (2007). Unicorns or Tiger Woods: Woods: are lie detection experts experts myths or rarities? A response response to on lie detection "wizards" by Bond and Uysal (http:/ / www.springerlink. www.springerlink.com/ com/ content/ content/ 458t088h8673210v/ fulltext. 458t088h8673210v/ fulltext.html). html). Law and human behavior, 31. [8] Bond, C. F. (2008), (2008), Commentary a few can catch a liar, sometimes: sometimes: Comments Comments on Ekman and O'Sullivan (1991), as well well as Ekman, O'Sullivan, and Frank (1999) (http:/ / onlinelibrary.wiley. onlinelibrary.wiley.com/ com/ doi/ doi/ 10.1002/ 10.1002/ acp.1475/ acp.1475/ abstract). abstract). Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22: 1298 – 1300. 1300. [9] Ekman, P., O'Sullivan, O'Sullivan, M. and Frank, M. (2008), Reply scoring and reporting: reporting: A response to bond bond (2008) (http:/ / onlinelibrary.wiley. onlinelibrary.wiley.com/ com/ doi/ 10.1002/ 10.1002/ acp.1474/ acp.1474/ abstract). abstract). Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22: 1315 – 1317. 1317. [10] Bond, Gary D. (2008). Deception Deception detection detection expertise expertise (http:/ / www.springerlink. www.springerlink.com/ com/ content/ content/ 3851143983032195/ fulltext. 3851143983032195/ fulltext.html). html). Law and human behavior, 32. [11] O'Sullivan O'Sullivan,, Maureen. Maureen. (2007). (2007). (http:/ / www. www. jstor.org/ jstor.org/ pss/ pss/ 4499519). 4499519). Law and human behavior, 31. [12] O'Sullivan O'Sullivan,, Maureen. Maureen. (2007). (2007). (http:/ / www. www. jstor.org/ jstor.org/ pss/ pss/ 4499519). 4499519). Law and human behavior, 31.

142

Wizards Project [13] Paul Ekman, Maureen O'Sullivan, Mark Frank. (http:/ / onlinelibrary.wiley.com/ doi/ 10.1002/ acp.1474/ abstract). Applied Cognitive Psychology. [14] Camilleri, J., Truth Wizard knows when you've been lying", Chicago Sun-Times, January 21, 2009 [15] http:/ / blog.eyesforlies.com [16] http:/ / www.eyesforlies.com

EurekAlert! (2004, October 14). Lying and deceit – The Wizards Project. Retrieved April 8, 2012, from Lying and deceit – The Wizards Project: http:/ / www.eurekalert.org/ pub_releases/ 2004-10/ ama-lad100804.php

External links • Collection of Articles on Truth Wizards (http:/ / www.eyesforlies.com/ articles.htm) from eyesforlies.com • Lying and Deceit: The Wizards Project (http:/ / www.eurekalert.org/ pub_releases/ 2004-10/ ama-lad100804. php) • Scientists Pick Out Human Lie Detectors, MSNBC.com (http:/ / www.msnbc.msn.com/ id/ 6249749/ )

143

Article Sources and Contributors

144

Article Sources and Contributors Air-defense experiments Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=415490920 Contributors: Appraiser,

Barticus88, BenWLister, Brianhe, Carabinieri, Clicketyclack, ErrantX, Hugo999, Jaraalbe, Kumioko (renamed), Lightmouse, Pearle, R'n'B, Richardelainechambers, Siva1979, 6 anonymous edits Analog observation Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=511916281 Contributors: K7L, 5 anonymous edits Asch conformity experiments Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=521871648 Contributors: Abigerte, AbsolutDan,

Ahoerstemeier, Al3xil, Alangilchrist, Andrewaskew, Andy Smith, Andycjp, Andyfugard, Anomaly1, Aquanator313, ArnoGourdol, Astrothomas, Avnjay, Badon, Basebalpaintbal, BenKovitz, Berserkerus, Billthefish, Brickc1, Caltas, CardinalDan, Cimex, Ciphergoth, Cordell, Cybercobra, D'Agosta, Delphinus1997, Doczilla, DropDeadGorgias, El C, Emijrp, Emurphy42, Epbr123, Episeda, Farolif, Fiveless, FlyingToaster, Freddyd945, Gabbe, Graham87, Gveret Tered, HDCase, Hooperbloob, Hugo999, II MusLiM HyBRiD II, Iamthedeus, Icarus3, IceCreamAntisocial, Ilikeliljon, Ilikeverin, ImperfectlyInformed, J.delanoy, Jaraalbe, Jimp, JohnCD, Johnkarp, Jujutacular, Jusdafax, Kate, Kernel Saunters, Koveras, Krellis, Kungfoocow369, L33tminion, Les boys, Lucidish, M.thoriyan, Mabisa, Mattbuck, Mattweng, Miq, MsHarlyQuin, Nescotboy, Nicolas1981, Nik42, Notalwaysright, Notyourbroom, Nyenyec, Olaf Davis, One Night In Hackney, Oohchili88, Pharaoh of the Wizards, Piano non troppo, Plairf1, Portillo, Quadrius, R Lowry, R'n'B, R000t, RadioFan, Rearete, Renesis, Rjwilmsi, RobertG, Saric, Skagedal, Skarebo, SpaceFlight89, SummerWithMorons, Susvolans, Szajci, Taak, Th1rt3en, The Thing That Should Not Be, TheLimbicOne, Thorwald, Tim bates, TitaniumDreads, Toddst1, Trusilver, Tsop, Tugbug, U3964057, Uncle Dick, Unomi, Varuag doos, Viriditas, Vkyrt, Wiki alf, Wikipelli, Winchelsea, Zlesliez, 211 anonymous edits Attrition (medicine, epidemiology) Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=383046505 Contributors: Buekerc1, Gary King, MER-C, 1 anonymous edits Behavioural despair test Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=499103722 Contributors: Dactyle, Dawynn,

Doczilla, El3ctr0nika, Favonian, Fvasconcellos, Graham87, Kingzealer1, MTHarden, Mild Bill Hiccup, RichardF, Slashme, SlimVirgin, That Guy, From That Show!, The Anome, Tstrobaugh, 4 anonymous edits Blacky pictures Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=501454617 Contributors: Ncboy2010, Nydas, Rich Farmbrough User:Bdelsanto/sandbox Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=520979497 Contributors: Bdelsanto Bobo doll experiment Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=522014651 Contributors: 1000Faces, Ageekgal, Alansohn, Alexanderxvii, Allisonmarieanne, Amalsunder, Amusico2,

Arno Matthias, B1atv, Bdelsanto, Berean Hunter, Beve, Bizhaoqi, Bobo192, Breno, ChrisG, Closedmouth, Coopsoup247, Cowicide, DanielCD, Deathawk, Delirium, DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered, Dogthehellrider, Drmies, Eitheladar, Ersatz Fool, Escalona, Fasten, Fjarlq, ForestAngel, Frencheigh, Gareth Griffith-Jones, GoingBatty, Grafen, Graham87, GrammarHammer 32, Gyrofrog, HalJor, JEN9841, JHunterJ, Jackelfive, Jaraalbe, Jennavecia, Johnkarp, Jrc, Jschnur, Jtneill, Jwy, Kai-Hendrik, Keilana, Kiwifruitrulz, Kndiaye, Laonikoss, Lmsilva, Lova Falk, Malcolma, Mara99, Materialscientist, Mattisse, Maxim, Mayumi, Mboverload, Nesbit, OGoncho, ONUnicorn, Onlyemarie, Orthologist, PhilipMW, Pinethicket, Pstanton, Rajah, Ray morgan lee, Retired user 0001, Rettetast, Rich Farmbrough, Rjwilmsi, Robofish, SMC, Scarian, Scienda, Seth Ilys, Simon Villeneuve, Skop, TIY, TheaterMarine, Vaughan, Voiklis, Ycaps123, 222 anonymous edits Cognitive chronometry Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=445962795 Contributors: Aidengregg, Bearcat, DCDuring,

Doczilla, Grutness, Malcolma, Oneiros, Stemonitis, 4

anonymous edits Conflict procedure Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=423897973 Contributors: Dawynn, El3ctr0nika, 2

anonymous edits

Cyranoid Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=515315632 Contributors: Darth Stobie, Doczilla, Grutness, Kyoko, MidgleyDJ, Mr.crabby, TonyTheTiger, Wjbeaty, 3 anonymous

edits Eriksen flanker task Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=491965465 Contributors: DGG, Digfarenough, Download, Fnielsen, Graeme Bartlett, Grafen, Kognos, 8

anonymous

edits Fordham Experiment Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=411938073 Contributors: Cpoynton, Flameviper in Exile, GregorB, Hu,

Hugo999, Jamesmorrison, Jaraalbe, Jclemens, Lemccbr, MiNombreDeGuerra, PaulHanson, Pearle, Pegship, Ringbang, Robin klein, Shining.Star, Skagedal, Wikiklrsc, Zxcvbnm, 6 anonymous edits Ganzfeld experiment Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=520901956 Contributors: Amcbride, Amillar, Andycjp, Arch dude,

Asdjha, Ashmoo, Canterbury Tail, Carmichael, Chem student, Ciphergoth, Darklilac, David Woodward, Ddxc, Donmike10, Enric Naval, Ersby, Grizzly, IceKarma, Infophile, Insomnia dream, Isidore, Issuesixty soulsgreat, JamesMLane, John Broughton, Johnfos, Kazuba, L Kensington, Le sacre, Lusanaherandraton, MachinaLabs, Magioladitis, Male1979, Martinphi, Maunus, McGeddon, Mccready, Michaelbusch, Minderbinder, Myriam Tobias, Myscrnnm, Nealparr, Nurg, OAC, Oreo Priest, PGSONIC, Pastafarian Nights, Paul S. Cilwa, Perfectblue97, Pigman, Przepla, RadioElectric, Riotrocket8676, Rjwilmsi, Ronhjones, Ronz, RookZERO, Ryulong, Securiger, Shirt58, SimonP, Skysmith, Storkk, Svick, Taak, Tesseract2, The Anome, Thegoodlocust, Tim1357, Timwi, Trey314159, Twipley, Van der Hoorn, Waveguy, Wiki Raja, Wikidudeman, Xanzzibar, Zundark, ‫ ﮏ‬, 112 anonymous edits Genetic Studies of Genius Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=505225107 Contributors: Aaron

Kauppi, Bobamnertiopsis, Cassmus, Dandv, Dranster, GoingBatty, Grahamec, Guillaume2303, Jake Wartenberg, Jrtayloriv, KConWiki, Lova Falk, Nentrex, Nirion, Ott2, Rjwilmsi, 2 anonymous edits Hofling hospital experiment Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=521684648 Contributors: AMcgM, Andrewaskew, Artaxus,

Betacommand, Blainster, Calmer Waters, Caltas, Causa sui, Chuunen Baka, Cometstyles, Cretog8, Cubs197, Delphinus1011, Dsp13, Epbr123, GregorB, Ivetta Stork, Little Mountain 5, Maimone, McGeddon, Mr0t1633, NickelShoe, NorthernThunder, PRH, Phantomsteve, Rich Farmbrough, Robin klein, Sinanozel, Smshaw, Thegreatnick, Vasiľ, Workman161, Xkoalax, Île flottante, 92 anonymous edits Implicit Association Test Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=520697618 Contributors: Aeternus, Aidengregg, Arcandam, Ary29,

Auto469680, Bakilas, Bloodshedder, Bobo192, Borkert, ChaNce, Chris3145, Cmglee, CommonsDelinker, Discospinster, Everyking, Extremophile, Foonarres, GreatWhiteNortherner, Haley love, Hmarkson, Hu12, Iat, J.delanoy, J0m1eisler, JHP, Jcbutler, Jodyng888, JonDePlume, JorisvS, Libertinica, Littlerabbit, LjL, Lod, Lotje, Melonseed, Midway, Minik, Morenoodles, Nestify, Nethac DIU, NickelShoe, Niteowlneils, PaulWicks, Piotrus, Psy463 2684, Psy463 7027, Ragesock, Rainsound, Richiemorrisroe, Rjwilmsi, Robin klein, SchreiberBike, SewerCat, Shari.alaina, SlipperyN, Surfoslo, ThreeAnswers, User6985, Zenohockey, 99 anonymous edits Independent measures Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=480613182 Contributors: Alvestrand, Cerebellum, LilHelpa, Mordyyy, NerdyScienceDude, Peter Robinson Scott,

S. Shaw, Signalhead, 19 anonymous edits Le Jeu de la Mort Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=507540631 Contributors:

Azumanga1, Reywas92, Severo, ViperSnake151, 5 , -

anonymous edits

Laboratory experimentation Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=286124837 Contributors: A314268, Cybercobra, Dialectric, RichardF, 3 anonymous edits Learned helplessness Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=522098059 Contributors: 1000Faces, Aaron Kauppi, AaronSw, Aeternus, Amherst99, Antaeus Feldspar,

Armadillopteryx, Asheemak, Ashleychanel3145, Aviados, Bender235, Bhny, Brighterorange, CarlFink, Cgingold, Chammy Koala, Chantale, Cirt, ColdFeet, Curb Chain, Cybermud, Czaring, DanielCD, Db4wp, DoctorW, Dolphonia, Doneuron, Dr.enh, Drkencarter, Dysprosia, ESkog, Ed Poor, FT2, Fairsing, FoCuSandLeArN, Fredrik, Glas158, Graham87, Green egg, Hga, Insmgg, Iridescent, J.delanoy, JSoules, Jihadcola, Jim1138, Jj137, Joefromrandb, Johnkarp, Joshyy2608, JxZiel, Katalaveno, Kevinsocpsy, Keyblade5, Kingturtle, Kkved, Korath, Kukini, Lalalayu, Lopfish, MC MasterChef, MCB, Martin451, Maryrus, Mattisse, Mediation4u, Mengwong, Michelvoss, Mikker, Mild Bill Hiccup, Mladifilozof, Muad, N5iln, Nagelfar, Nesbit, NicoleSand, Nikkiopelli, Nikthestunned, Nunh-huh, PCock, Penbat, Pengo, Pinethicket, Pnm, Pointillist, Polpo, Prattflora, Presearch, QVanillaQ, RJHall, Rccoms, Remuel, Rewsdale, Rich Farmbrough, RichardF, Rjwilmsi, Robert Daoust, Rodii, Romanfall, Roy Brumback, SDC, Sarahgeorge, Sardrith, Shell Kinney, ShiftyT, Shreevatsa, Sketchmoose, Snigbrook, Sonny Moonie, Tagishsimon, Telekenesis, Tmyeager, Tsandbek, Tsundhe, Unitfloat, Varano, VisitingPhilosopher, Waninge, Wbrameld, Whiskeydog, Wiki13, Wiki177787, Wikiklrsc, William Avery, Wingedsubmariner, WpZurp, Yaris678, Yelyos, ZayZayEM, ~Ria777~, 220 anonymous edits Lexical decision task Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=501688938 Contributors: Anelso, Asphalted, Ciceronl, Iulus Ascanius, Junes, Ligulem, Lou.weird, Makeswell,

Marvel1839, Mattisse, Mdeeh, MichalKwiatkowski, Nestify, Purodha, Rjanag, S.mathot, That Guy, From That Show!, 4 anonymous edits Little Albert experiment Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=521695863 Contributors: AMac2002, AbsolutDan, Action potential, AdjustShift, Ahpook, Ale jrb,

AlexR, Alexandre Pedrassoli, Amandajm, Andycjp, Anetode, Anniepoo, Aquillion, Atomician, Augustgrahl, Auric, Avenged Eightfold, Barkeep, Bobo192, Bookish, Calabe1992, Camw, Ccmonty, Cedibciz, Christopherdgreen, Cookiemobsta, Corvus cornix, DMacks, Dafuzzinator, DanielCD, David Ludwig, Daz0123, DellSmell1, DividedByNegativeZero, Dr.alf, Dsp13, Dude1818, Edward, Epbr123, Erri4a, Es uomikim, Everyking, Fastfission, Fastily, Freddyd945, Funandtrvl, Funphy, Grafen, Graham87, GregorB, Groupthink, Hevern, Hmwith, Hoo man, Hooperbloob,

R.


145

Huddlebum, Hugo999, Icarusgeek, Jackelfive, Jackums, Jahiegel, Jaraalbe, Jasenszekely, Jengod, Jgm, JimVC3, Joriki, Khvalamde, Knowledge Seeker, Knyckis, Kukini, Kyng, LeilaniLad, Lestrade, Lova Falk, Manni, Mathsci, Michelleem, Mifter, Miquonranger03, Miss Madeline, Mr.H.Tseo, Mushonz, Nagy, Nightscream, Nohomers48, Nyke9, Nyttend, Parklandspanaway, Peter S., Philip Trueman, Pinethicket, Plrk, PonyToast, Pugdishnak, Ragonswife, Raul654, Rich Farmbrough, Richard001, Rklawton, Sam Hocevar, Sam Spade, Sarefo, Sars, Sfahey, Shoaler, Sjakkalle, Snow cat, Staticshakedown, Str1977, Surcer, TIY, Taak, Tethros, The Hybrid, The wub, Timwi, Tktktk, TonyO13, Tothebarricades.tk, Unbrokn1, Unused0026, Valenciano, Varlaam, Vary, Wikipelli, Wimt, Winston Trechane, Wlodzimierz, Yello10dm, Zoltanmikker, Zx-man, 272 anonymous edits Mackworth Clock Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=511523288 Contributors: Brichcja, DragonflySixtyseven, Hblanchard, Horselover Frost, 1

anonymous edits

Media violence research Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=521980427 Contributors: AManWithNoPlan, Alansohn, ApolloCreed, Arthena, Avalongod, Bdmccray, Bento00,

BlackCab, BooyakaDell, Caltas, Calvacadeofcats, Capricorn42, Charles Matthews, Click23, Cremepuff222, Crr09e, Crystallina, Dallie24, Dancter, Decltype, DerHexer, Dismas, Elainecs, Fraggle81, FuzzyWhisper, Gail, GenevieveDH, George100, GirasoleDE, Grant65, Grumpyyoungman01, Gurchzilla, H.sanat, Hataem, HexaChord, Hoary, I dream of horses, In fact, InvisibleK, Iridescent, J.delanoy, JaGa, JamesGrimshaw, Janarius, Jas131, Jduva, Jerry teps, Jfriedl, Jhannaway, Jhferrier24, Jim1138, John Riemann Soong, Joseph Solis in Australia, Kakashi232323, Kzevnik, Larry Doolittle, Lemieu, Lova Falk, M2545, Mabdul, Mahewa, Mandarax, Marasmusine, Mboverload, Mdann52, Menthaxpiperita, Merlion444, Mike Rosoft, MisfitToys, Mitch Ames, MiwaMAS214, Mjmqb7, Monteitho, Narkypolak, Naturalpsychology, Neko-chan, Ohms law, Oxymoron83, Pengo, PeterSymonds, Philip Trueman, Pie Man 360, Planetarium24, RainbowOfLight, RekishiEJ, Rich Farmbrough, RichardF, Rjwilmsi, Rtdrury, STACKAGUCCI, Schwnj, ScottyWZ, Shawn in Montreal, Sjakkalle, Spudsterone, SuperMarioMan, Tablespeed, Tanjalo, Tassedethe, Tevildo, The Kytan Apprentice, The Thing That Should Not Be, TheRingess, Thebirdlover, Thibbs, Thingg, Trusilver, Uncle Dick, Vanished user llkd8wtiuawfhiuweuhncu3tr, West.andrew.g, Woer$, XcepticZP, Xtcy3, 391 anonymous edits Metallic Metals Act Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=517385968 Contributors: Adam1012, Chris the

speller, ChrisCork, Doczilla, Good Olfactory, Malcolma, Mattisse,

Rewinn, Richmcl, Rjwilmsi, 2 anonymous edits MIDAS Trial Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=220205167 Contributors: Lilac Soul, Mattisse Milgram experiment Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=522051548 Contributors: .V., 119,

213.122.237.xxx, 9.232, =CJK=, AMcgM, Aarchiba, AbsolutDan, Accotink2, Afteread, Againme, Agapetos angel, AgarwalSumeet, Agnosticraccoon, Ahoerstemeier, Akajune, Akechi77, Akira625, Alai, Alerante, Alexius08, AllGloryToTheHypnotoad, Altenmann, Amazins490, Amorfati00, Anazgnos, Andrewaskew, Antandrus, Anton.dadich, Ap4413, Ariadacapo, Aris Katsaris, Ashley Pomeroy, Ashmoo, Atncgnito, AuburnPilot, Audriusa, AustenT, BD2412, Badseed, Barfoed, Barticus88, Bcasterline, Beeftony, Beige Tangerine, BenRG, Berylcloud, Bianco2nero, Bjdehut, Blanchette, Bluejam, Bobblewik, Bobertoq, Boyd Reimer, Bpurosky, Brucevdk, Bryan Derksen, Bsod2, Caleiva, Catanguy, CatherineMunro, Causa sui, Cen2s2s, Cfortunato, Cgingold, Chameleon, Chocolateboy, CjamKamajau3bpHymamopma, Clarince63, Clayoquot, Cliffb, Cmdrjameson, CommonsDelinker, Conti, Conversion script, Cputrdoc, Craigy144, Credop, Cretog8, Crossmr, Csigabi, Css, Cugel, CumbiaDude, Custoo, DLand, Damian Yerrick, Dan Gardner, Danger, Danhash, Daniel Mietchen, DanielCD, DanielCristofani, Dante Alighieri, Darthbob100, Dartholorin, DaveTheRed, Daveh4h, David Gerard, David Ludwig, Davidz07, Davril2020, Dbsanfte, DeadlyAssassin, Delikedi, Delphinus1011, Demi, Destron Commander, Dina, Discospinster, Diza, Dlohcierekim, Doczilla, Dom316, Doradus, Dorftrottel, Doyley, DragonLord1975, Durin, Dysprosia, EJGoldfish, EamonnPKeane, Ed Poor, Ed g2s, Eddievhfan1984, Edward, Efiiamagus, Ehn, Ejetzer, El C, Elgreggo11, Eloquence, Emurphy42, Epbr123, Eptalon, EqualRights, Erekrose, Ericamick, Everyking, Evil Monkey, Excirial, Expiring frog, Exshrimper, F, Falcon8765, Fbriere, FedericoEcon, Ferengi, Feudonym, FrancoGG, Friman, Frédérick Lacasse, Furrykef, Fuzzy artist, Fyrael, GL, Gabbe, Gamer007, Garrondo, GateKeeper, General Synopsis, Genin13, Geremy78, Gerweck, Giftlite, Gimmetrow, Girlwithgreeneyes, Gmaxwell, Gnfnrf, Gnossie, Gnowor, GodGell, GoldDragon, Gombulandun, Gothick, Gparker, GraemeL, Grafen, Graham king 3, Graham87, Granpuff, Gregmce, GregorB, GregoryWeir, Grgrsmth, Grick, Groupthink, Guthrie, Habj, Haritada, Harryboyles, Hashar, Haukurth, Headbomb, Heavenlyblue, Hektor, Heliomance, Heron, Hiationi, Hkchan123, Hoganben, Holzman-tweed, Hyad, Hydrargyrum, Idilturkmenoglu, Igoldste, IlGreven, Illuvatar,, ImperfectlyInformed, Imran, Inferno, Lord of Penguins, Informationtheory, Insanity Incarnate, Intgr, Iosef, IrishJew, IslandHopper973, IstvanWolf, Itub, Izhamwong, J.Gowers, J.delanoy, JEN9841, JJM, JRSM, Jalr600, JamesTeterenko, Jason Yuy, Jauerback, Jauren098, Jedmeltzer, Jeff02, Jehochman, Jeraphine Gryphon, Jerrykim, Jethy91, Jj1236, Jmabel, Jmburger, Jmh649, Jnestorius, JoeSmack, Joelr31, John Darrow, John254, Johnkarp, JohnnyTwain, Jonathan.s.kt, Jonnabuz, Joo, Jpidgeon, Jrtayloriv, Jsgoodrich, Jtneill, Jules.lt, Julesd, Justice for All, K kisses, KF, Kai-Hendrik, Kanatonian, KapilTagore, Karada, Katstevens, Keenan Pepper, Kgf0, Kingturtle, Kintetsubuffalo, Kirachinmoku, Kjetil, Kooky, Kyslyi, KyuuA4, LSASM, La goutte de pluie, Lacrimosus, Largoplazo, Lesslame, Liet, Liist, Lochaber, Lova Falk, Lucidish, Luk, Lupin, MC Dupree, Malcor, Male1979, Manuelt15, Marblespire, Marquez, Martymcskywalker, Masamage, Matt Crypto, Matt tizzard, Maurice Carbonaro, Mav, Maziotis, Mboedick, Mcstrother, Mdd4696, Memanmo, Metal Gear VVVVV, Michael Hardy, MichaelTinkler, Mike Rosoft, Mike Segal, Milgramaniac, Milo99, Mindmatrix, Mira, Mmarques, Moncrief, MonoAV, Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg, Mostlymostly, Mr. Laser Beam, Mrgazpacho, Mshonle, Msrasnw, Myscrnnm, MysteryBee, NB-NB, Nabokov, Nakon, Nasion, Natalie Erin, Naufana, Neckro, Netsnipe, Neutrality, Nick Graves, Nickleics, Nightscream, Nightvision1984, Nikkimaria, Nissi Kim, Nlu, No username works, Nyenyec, Oda Mari, Olivier, Olivier Hammam, Onesimos, Onesius, Ori, Ost316, Otashiro, Otolemur crassicaudatus, Ott2, OttoMäkelä, Oziblade, PDH, Paranoid, Parita, Pascal666, Patstuart, Paul August, Peruvianllama, PhS, Phil Boswell, Philwiki, Pigsonthewing, Pilot101, Pinethicket, Piotrus, PlasmaDragon, Plasticup, Pogogunner, Ponder, Poolisfun, Portalian, Prhg, Priceyeah, Protohiro, PurpleRain, Pwestep, Pwillred, Quae legit, Quest for Truth, QuizzicalBee, Quux, R2jitu, R3m0t, RDBrown, RIT ninja, Radagast3, Ragityman, RandomAct, Raul654, Ravikiran r, Rearden Metal, Reetep, Res2216firestar, Rich Farmbrough, Rjwilmsi, Robert Daoust, RobertG, RobertHarrisIII, Robin klein, Rodrigo764, Roland Kaufmann, Ronz, Ropers, RoyBoy, Rune.welsh, SJP, Saizai, Sam Barsoom, Samugariya, SandyGeorgia, Savidan, Sciencewatcher, Scientus, Sciurinæ, Sean D Martin, Seaphoto, Seinman, Sennen goroshi, Shadowjams, Shalmanese, Sharkface217, Shdwanna, Shred, SilhouetteSaloon, SimonP, Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington, Sjakkalle, Skysmith, Slinkyhead148, Smcg8374, Smiteri, Snoyes, Soccerchamp360, Solipsist, Solitude, Spangineer, Sparkleyone, Specs112, Squiddy, Stedder, Sten André, Stepa, Stephen Gilbert, Storkk, Stovetopcookies, SummerWithMorons, Supersharma, Swimjim219, Swtimmer, Szoltys, TJ Spyke, Taak, TaborL, Takua108, Tealwisp, TedwardHall, Teflon Don, Teravolt, The Anome, The JPS, The Realms of Gold, The Thing That Should Not Be, Theo Cervi, Thesmatestguy, Thinking of England, ThisIsAce, Thisismadness, Thorwald, Thue, Thumperward, Tiddly Tom, Timneu22, Timwi, Tobias Hoevekamp, Tony Sidaway, TonyW, Traroth, Trevor Andersen, Trevortni, Turnstep, UK-Logician-2006, Ultimojones, Utcursch, Vanished User 1004, Vehement, Violetriga, ViperSnake151, Viriditas, W guice, WOSlinker, WaddSpoiley, Waltervulej, Wapcaplet, Ward3001, Wayne Slam, Wbrameld, Wfeidt, WhisperToMe, Wikidudeman, Wikiklrsc, William Avery, Wipfeln, Wizzy, Wmlschlotterer, Wonjin0218, Wookiepedian, XJamRastafire, Xaosflux, XenonEngine, YUL89YYZ, Yworo, Zdravko mk, ²¹², 959 anonymous edits The Monster Study Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=516952231 Contributors: Ahrp, Arcendet, Badon, Brossow,

Chris the speller, Clintville, Davidhorman, EdJohnston, Editor52, Gianreali, Hooperbloob, Hydrogen Iodide, J.delanoy, Jnestorius, Leolaursen, Lproven, Mattisse, Neelix, O.Koslowski, PKT, PianoplayerPaul, Plrk, Queenmomcat, Rekiwi, Robofish, Sun Creator, Swimmergirlie, Tegrenath, ThePlaz, Twas Now, Yutsi, 26 anonymous edits Naturalistic observation Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=521920947 Contributors: Aaron Kauppi,

Adam78, Andycjp, Avb, Biscuittin, Byelf2007, Charles Matthews, CheekyMonkey, E Wing, Gaius Cornelius, Gregbard, Janarius, JenLouise, John of Reading, Kilopi, Quinnsam91, RichardF, Robofish, Tcox88, Travza, 37 anonymous edits Nun Study Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=502545400 Contributors: Aaronjwiki, Asdfj, Cjc13, DrBurger,

EoGuy, Grutness, MTHarden, Mais oui!, MartinPoulter, Menchi,

Red55Pickup, Viriditas, 7 anonymous edits Oddball paradigm Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=506863875 Contributors: GoingBatty, HokieSG, Kfederme, LittleHow, Marcus Qwertyus, 2 anonymous edits Oklahoma City sonic boom tests Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=495737959 Contributors: Alan

Liefting, CopperSquare, Dthomsen8, Furrykef, Jrtayloriv, Mickcullen, MilborneOne, Mlaffs, Nick Cooper, Nono64, Omeomi, Otolemur crassicaudatus, Pimlottc, Ratmangxa, Speciate, Tec15, Timvasquez, Truthanado, Twang, Vgy7ujm, 12 anonymous edits Open Field (animal test) Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=468676422 Contributors: Crosstemplejay, Hitokui Pineapple, MTHarden, Neojacob, Rjwilmsi, Talgalili, 1

anonymous edits PEBL (software) Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=522097414 Contributors: Nestify Pit of despair Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=508012795 Contributors: Achamove, Action

potential, Afa86, Alan Liefting, AllGloryToTheHypnotoad, AmRen93, Andycjp, Atlant, Belovedfreak, Blueberrypie12, Cedders, Dave Runger, DragonflySixtyseven, Drawn Some, Drewheasman, El C, Eric Shalov, Froth, Gabbe, Gilgamesh, Gobonobo, Grace Note, Hugo999, Ingolfson, J.delanoy, Jaganath, Jarble, John, Luna Santin, MBisanz, MapsMan, Melaen, Merkuri, Mgiganteus1, Miaers, Michael Hardy, Migospia, Nearfar, Nightscream, OÔ, PhnomPencil, RDBrown, Rbogle, Richard75, Riffraffselbow, Rockpocket, Samuel Blanning, Seresin, ShakingSpirit, Slffea, SlimVirgin, Srnec, The Anome, Thespian, Trovatore, Tryptofish, TungstenCarbide XI, Vanbeek.j, William Avery, ‫ﯽ‬ , 35 anonymous edits Project Pigeon Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=521120836 Contributors: A2Kafir,

AMuseo, Anthony Appleyard, AxelBoldt, Brutaldeluxe, Canoe1967, Conscious, DrChrissy, Dreadstar, ElKevbo, Engineer comp geek, Eranb, Evercat, GCarty, Garrondo, Good Olfactory, Hugo999, Jerdwyer, Joshbaumgartner, Jpbowen, Karada, Lao Wai, Materialscientist, Narson, Oberiko, Pandacomics, Pinethicket, Prmacn, Richard David Ramsey, Rmhermen, Srleffler, Suruena, Syd.uni.press, That Guy, From That Show!, The ed17, Timwi, Ward3001, 28 anonymous edits Pseudoword Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=511970534 Contributors: Allens, Bjuteau, Cnilep,

NickelShoe, Purodha, Sausagerooster, The Wiki ghost, Tropylium, True, 4 anonymous edits

Damian Yerrick, Dan Pelleg, Junes, Kwamikagami, Magioladitis, Mattis,


146

Psychological statistics Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=514838063 Contributors: 2over0, Acdixon, Ajpoggio, Ceradon, Chris53516, Conversion script, Den

fjättrade ankan, Dick Beldin, Doczilla, EPM, Graham87, Hike395, Jeremymiles, Jfitzg, Kgwet, Mattisse, Melcombe, Michael Hardy, Nakon, Oleg Alexandrov, Precanalytics, PrestonH, Ranger2006, RexNL, RichardF, RobertM525, Sardanaphalus, Shakesomeaction, SimonP, Smasongarrison, Talgalili, TheParanoidOne, 15 anonymous edits Psychomotor vigilance task Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=506818484 Contributors: Amandac16, Cobaltcigs, Dandv, Fabrictramp, Hordaland, Katharineamy,

Magioladitis, Nestify, Rjwilmsi, Sandarlu, ShaneTMueller, Tekhnofiend, 4 anonymous edits PsychoPy Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=504450774 Contributors: Frap, Jon.peirce, Lova Falk, Rich

Farmbrough, Stuartyeates, Topbanana, 5 anonymous edits

PsyScope Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=489665777 Contributors: Alvestrand, Drgilberto, Jivecat, Kahvc7,

LMBM2012, Lucabo, Obiwankenobi, Pegship, Rjwilmsi, THF,

1 anonymous edits Rat Park Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=510932795 Contributors: 119,

Alan Liefting, AllGloryToTheHypnotoad, Andrewferrier, Antaeus Feldspar, Bavaria1516, Bishonen, Bobblewik, Brighterorange, Bruce k alexander, CXCV, Cacycle, Ceyockey, ChrisG, Cybercobra, Dakinijones, Danmaz74, David.Monniaux, DavidWBrooks, Deepthoughts13, Dr Zak, DragonflySixtyseven, Duagloth, Erasmus Quasar, Fawcett5, Filiocht, Gabbe, Giano, Grace Note, Graham87, GregorB, Guttlekraw, HarryHenryGebel, Hooperbloob, JillandJack, John Duncan, John Nevard, Johnkarp, Jprobinson23, Karada, Kenb215, Leyo, Lighterthief, LittleHow, Lotje, MPF, Magicmonster, Maurreen, Mccready, Michael Hardy, Miles, Mindmatrix, Netkinetic, Neutrality, Nnvsnu, OlEnglish, Penbat, R. S. Shaw, Renwick, Richard Cooke, Sayeth, Shii, Shunpiker, SlimVirgin, Star General, SummerPhD, Taw, Telerhythm, Tothebarricades.tk, Tregoweth, Viriditas, WhatamIdoing, Wrp103, Yappy2bhere, ZayZayEM, 48 anonymous edits Rosenhan experiment Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=519643815 Contributors: 7mike5000, Aardhart,

Aaron11496, Ahultsfred, Aibdescalzo, AliMaghrebi, Althena, Andjor, Andycjp, Beefyt, Betacommand, Bloupikkewyn, Bodnotbod, BrainyBabe, BullRangifer, Cactus Wren, Cb77305, Ccacsmss, Chappell, Charles Merriam, Chris Thornett, Circeus, CloudSurfer, Darth Mike, David Ludwig, Delphinus1011, Dgw, Doctorfluffy, Dominus, Eaglizard, Es uomikim, False vacuum, Furrykef, Gabbe, Gioto, Goflow6206, Grandeepopea, Hamstersanonymous, Harro, Hoplon, Hugh Mason, Hugo999, IceKarma, Ihardlythinkso, IronGargoyle, J04n, Jacj, Jaraalbe, Jarhed, Jashiin, Jeffq, Jeremystalked, Johnfos, Johnkarp, Kayobee, Keenan Pepper, KeithC, Kenneth M Burke, Killian441, Koavf, Kriegman, Kwertii, Kyro, Kzollman, Le Scarlet Douche, Lilyology, Locos epraix, Lova Falk, Luke berryman, Lyo, Mark v1.0, MartinPoulter, Masamage, Mattisse, Mbarbier, Mbmiller, MyNameIsNeo, Nbauman, Nina73, OÔ, Ohnoitsjamie, OttoMäkelä, PHansen, Penbat, PeterH2, Pintobean453, Portillo, Psychiatrick, Pwnstigator, Rajah, Raul654, Rdrs, Rebroad, Regebro, Rich Farmbrough, Rjwilmsi, Rmosler2100, Sderose, ShelfSkewed, Siawase, SidP, Sillydragon, SimonP, Sinblox, Sir sigurd, SunDragon34, TFTD, Taak, TechnoFaye, Thatcher, Theozarks, Thismightbezach, Todeswalzer, Tomhannen, Twas Now, Vaughan, Ward20, Welton Rodrigo Torres Nascimento, William Avery, Woohookitty, Xihr, Zujine, 154 anonymous edits Rotarod performance test Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=499862227 Contributors: Avocado, Chalwalk, Cje,

Elminster Aumar, Fabrictramp, Katharineamy, Ketiltrout,

LilHelpa, Nihiltres, Pyfan, Rhombus, SchreiberBike, Vokesk, Wax025, Woohookitty, Александр Мотин, 2 anonymous edits Small-world experiment Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=508579153 Contributors: AaronSw, Abb3w, Abhishekbh, Alex

d 76, Altenmann, Andrushas, Anna Frodesiak, Anthony Appleyard, Arthena, AstroDave, Axelv, Bastique, Bellagio99, Chameleon, Chris the speller, Clcummings, DGG, Dachary, Daniel Mietchen, David McCormick, Dekisugi, Deltafidesign, Dikteren, DrJunge, Eestlane, Engineman, Erkcan, Eshatologist, Everything counts, FunPika, GTBacchus, GeoffCapp, Godfrey Benson, GoodStuff, Heirpixel, HereToHelp, Ilmari Karonen, J.delanoy, Jeff G., Jerfgoke, Joseph Solis in Australia, Kauczuk, Kotra, Ks0stm, Kvaks, Lachambre, Luneraako, Mackensen, Mathematrucker, Mdhruv, Michael Hardy, Mighty Jay, Millbart, Moez, Myasuda, N-lane, NYKevin, Nog33, Nono64, Oxymoron83, P.s., Pallab1234, Patrick2480, Pepso2, Piotrus, Pip25, Plrk, Pontus66, Radagast3, Rajah, Richardcute, Rjwilmsi, Robma, S234432, SalineBrain, Saturdayswiki, Scott Ritchie, SirHippo, Siryendor, Skomorokh, Skreyola, SparrowsWing, Teapot7a, Terrillfrantz, The Wild Falcon, ThomYoung, Tony1, Walkiped, Xanzzibar, XenonEngine, ZeroOne, ZimZalaBim, 99 anonymous edits Speech shadowing Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=493885401 Contributors: AManWithNoPlan, Aaron Kauppi, Allens,

Grutness, LittleHow, Looie496, LuoShengli,

Mcaisse, 1 anonymous edits Stanford marshmallow experiment Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=521689621 Contributors: 97198, Aiko,

DMacks, Danarmak, Dvh369, EdChem, GoingBatty, Goodvac, GregorB, Guoguo12, Markos Strofyllas, Mhhfive, Peter.C, Ser Amantio di Nicolao, Smartse, SpareSimian, Supertouch, Tim bates, WikiPeterD, WissensDürster, Xanchester, 22 anonymous edits Stanford prison experiment Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=522038866 Contributors: 89Jane, A

Nobody, Aardhart, Aaronbrick, Acroterion, Adelesse, AdjustShift, Adrian, Afteread, Agnosticraccoon, Ahpook, Akcarver, Alansohn, Alberrosidus, Alcmaeonid, Alexander Haslam, Alexlange, Allstarecho, AlphaEta, Anagogist, Andrewaskew, Andycjp, Angryapathy, Anna Frodesiak, Anonymous editor, Antaeus Feldspar, Antandrus, Anupam, Ashleykb84, Astarf, Atomician, Auto469680, Banjaloupe, Barticus88, Beeftrax, Beetstra, Bellhalla, Bensin, BigBellyJarelli, BigHennessy64, BlazerKnight, Bluehavana, Bobblewik, Bobet, Bobo192, Brinerustle, Bronzethumb, Bryan Derksen, Buckyboy314, Buddy13, Burntsauce, Bxj, Byelf2007, Cactus.man, CambridgeBayWeather, Captain Disdain, Carl Von Clausewitz, Carlosp420, Castingpagina, Cdc, Cdogsimmons, CelineDesJardins, Cgingold, Chaneski, Charles Merriam, CharlotteWebb, Cheesemancheeseman, Chris Roy, Chrislk02, Cirt, ClaudeReigns, Clementina, Cliffb, Coachs, Condem, Conti, Cosmic Latte, Cretog8, Crossmr, Custos0, Cybercobra, Cyrius, D Marcescu, D.W. Aley, DHCpepper, DNewhall, DTRY, Daev, Dakhart, Dangorironhide, Daniel.hartwig, Dannown, Darkfrog24, Darwinek, Dave.Dunford, Daveh4h, David Ludwig, David4429, DavidLevinson, Davidhorman, Dekimasu, Deleet, Deltabeignet, Dettesoriano, Diabolika, Dismas, Dj stone, DocumentN, Dod1, Donreed, Dr Gangrene, Dr.K., DwS, Edesimuh, Edward, El C, ElinorD, Emurphy42, Entheta, Entirelybs, Epbr123, EqualRights, Esrever, Essy01, Fabiform, Falcon8765, Favonian, Ferengi, FiveColourMap, Fixmanius, Flcelloguy, Fluzwup, Format, Freddyd945, FrenchIsAwesome, FreplySpang, Frescard, Friginator, Frédérick Lacasse, Furrykef, GSnaesauce, Galf, Garg.nawal, GateKeeper, GeeJo, George100, Gerrit, Gimmetrow, Giraffedata, Glen, Glisteningsquid, Glitch010101, GoingBatty, Gojomo, GoldDragon, Grace715, Grafen, Groupthink, Gwernol, Hailey C. Shannon, Halosix, Hanxu9, HarlandQPitt, Harro5, Harvardstudent, Henkk78, Hennessey, Patrick, Henning Blatt, Hetar, Hibou8, Hinrik, Hob, Hodja Nasreddin, Homerjay, Homestarmy, Hooperbloob, Hornlitz, Hotcrocodile, Hq3473, Hugo999, IceUnshattered, Icefall5, Ihardlythinkso, Inevitableyoke, Infocidal, Inhumandecency, Insanity Incarnate, Iosef, J.delanoy, JEN9841, JNW, JaGa, Jaraalbe, Jeff Silvers, Jeffpw, Jengod, Jesanj, JesseW, Jessi1989, Jghaines, Jhm0084, Jim1138, Jnestorius, Joaquin Murietta, John, JohnChrysostom, JoseEmidio, Joseph A. Spadaro, Joshjoshajosh, Joyous!, Jrtayloriv, Jugurtha3, Jumping cheese, JustinHall, Jwad, KPF, Kaalel, Kai-Hendrik, Kanatonian, Kane5187, Karonaway, Katydidit, Kchishol1970, Keithonearth, Kevinmon, Killiondude, Konstantin, Kyslyi, LAX, Lacrimosus, Laurinavicius, Leandrod, LeedsKing, Leonard Vertighel, Lightmouse, LilHelpa, Llaba, LockeShocke, Longhair, Lord Pistachio, Lotje, Lova Falk, LovelyLillith, Lucidish, Luna Santin, MC10, MK, MONGO, Mad283, Maelor, Majesty of the Commons, MakerMarker, Marcika, Marquez, MartinPoulter, Masterpiece2000, Mattgirling, MatttK, Mcstrother, Meelar, Miaow Miaow, Michael Hardy, Michael123456789, Microfrost, MikeDawg, Mikelo.Arbaro, Minaker, MissSF, Misza13, Mjb, Mlaffs, Momoricks, Mondie1844, Mstyne, Muad, Muleattack, Murpht, Mytwocents, Nach0king, Nae'blis, NawlinWiki, Nbruschi, Ncmvocalist, Neelix, NeilSantos, Neilc, Neutrality, Nicholas Perkins, Nick123, Nightscream, Nikkimaria, NinjaKid, Noloop, Not the duke of Devonshire, Nposs, Nyenyec, Ocaasi, Ocatecir, Oddity-, OlEnglish, Olv 26, Omicronpersei8, Onlyemarie, Ossanha, Otolemur crassicaudatus, Palfrey, PeregrineAY, Perryar, Peter S., Peter.C, PhilipMW, PhilipO, Phoenix Hacker, Phyte, Pink133, Planetjanet, PlasmaDragon, Pleasantville, Politono, Porud!!!, Prodego, Prof Wrong, Psb777, Pumpmeup, Pwdob, R Lowry, Radical Mallard, Rael, Raelus, Rama, Raul654, Raymond Keller, Rdsmith4, Really crazy dave, Reechard, Rintrah, Rizlafiltercombo, Rjwilmsi, Robert P. O'Shea, RomanCandle61, Ronz, SAHaslam, SaltyDroid, Samsara, Seckenth, Seglea, Serendipodous, Sfan00 IMG, Shalom Yechiel, Shish, SidP, Simulcra, Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington, Sjakkalle, SkZ, Smcg8374, Some jerk on the Internet, Somearemoreequal, Sporti, Sstteevvee, StarIV, StefanoC, Stephanienox, Stopthebus18, Subdolous, Subzero Ray, Sudharsansn, SummerWithMorons, Sumreen, Supercoop, Supergeo, Susvolans, T.thanos, TIY, TKreuz, Taak, Takua108, Tealwisp, Tedp, Teecia315, Tex duped, Tgeairn, The Anome, The Arbiter, The Boy With A Torn In His Side, The Thing That Should Not Be, The number c, TheAwesomeHat, TheMadBaron, Theora23, Timeineurope, TomEatsCake, Tommy2010, Tonyle, TreasuryTag, Tregoweth, Trlkly, Tsourolampis, Tyler McHenry, U3964057, Ugo1970, Ukechukwupotikwa, Ukexpat, Uppland, Visualbeatz, WaldoJ, Walkman phone, Wanderingstan, Ward20, Wasbeer, Wayne Slam, WhisperToMe, Wiki Raja, Wiki Wikardo, Wikieditor06, Wikiklrsc, Wmlschlotterer, WojciechSwiderski, Wwwwolf, Xnolanx, Xnuala, Yath, Yosri, Zendonut, Zgystardst, Ziko, Zsinj, Zumbo, 738 anonymous edits Tail suspension test Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=473556856 Contributors: Dawynn, Dizzious,

El3ctr0nika, MTHarden, MuffledThud

The Third Wave Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=519304674 Contributors: 5dots, Abeg92, Absurdist1968, Againme, Airplaneman, Alakon, Alan smithee, Alansohn, Alex at

kms, All systems go, AndyMcKandless, Arcendet, ArdClose, AxelBoldt, Badger Addict, Badseed, Bensin, Bfigura's puppy, Bigbluefish, Blalalb88, Blanchardb, Bonkywop, BostonRed, Brandmeister, Brentdax, Bronks, BruceGrubb, Burgersrule514, Caerwine, Calendar, Castingpagina, Cheyinka, Cholling, ChrisGualtieri, Chriswaterguy, Cybercobra, Damac, Daniel5Ko, Dewey Finn, Dijxtra, Djm555000, DropDeadGorgias, Drunkenmonkey, Dyaa, E-Kartoffel, Eastlaw, Ellsworth, Fg68at, FlagrantUsername, Gareth Owen, General Fiasco, Gennarous, Gustavb, Hailey C. Shannon, Hairy Dude, Histrion, Iridescent, Itai, Jarble, Jleedev, Joffeloff, Jrtayloriv, JustAGal, JustPhil, L Kensington, Leapfrog314, Luna Santin, MacStep, Marblespire, Mbabane, Meadowvistan1984, Mfield, Michael Zimmermann, Moncrief, Monkeymox, Mouse Nightshirt, Nae'blis, Ode2joy, Onomatopoeia, OwenBlacker, Paceycity, PatrickFisher, Pavel92, Pbihr, Phil Boswell, Piet Delport, Piotrus, Plrk, Prokhorovka, Pwt898, RP88, Raymond Pasco, Redeagle688, RiverRat, Rklawton, Roscelese, Saccerzd, Sardanaphalus, Seattlenow, Skibitzky, Some jerk on the Internet, Spitfire, Steinsky, Stevebritgimp, SummerWithMorons, Tvmode, Utcursch, Versus22, VishalB, W.andrea, WIERDGREENMAN, Wiki Wikardo, Wikipelli, Wikit2007, Wingman4l7, Wombatcat, Xolani, 181 anonymous edits The Three Christs of Ypsilanti Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=507444254 Contributors: A.

Parrot, Dandv, Hob, JPG-GR, Mike Rosoft, Moozipan Cheese, Ori, Pegship,

Prowsej, Rajah, Rich Farmbrough, Simon Villeneuve, Takaia, 9 anonymous edits Tone variator Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=320578638 Contributors: Barneyg, Brian0918, Jbusenitz, Statsone, SummonerMarc, Tassedethe, 18 anonymous

edits


147

Ulcers in Executive Monkeys Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=486841268 Contributors: AliMaghrebi, Basketball110, Carolfrog,

Doczilla, Dreamyshade, Echuck215,

Electricalman, Good Olfactory, Iccilicus, Nuttycoconut, Open2universe, Rich Farmbrough, Rjwilmsi, 5 anonymous edits Vignette (psychology) Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=511882239 Contributors: Avicennasis, David1706, Drjheise, Fabrictramp, Haruth,

Jengirl1988, Katharineamy, Lova

Falk, Meclee, Trusilver, 3 anonymous edits Virtual reality cue reactivity Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=365414498 Contributors: Aaron

Kauppi, Adi4094, Daileym, Daileym.01, Emptyenvelope, Fabrictramp,

Katharineamy, Lova Falk, RHaworth, Stevenfruitsmaak, 1 anonymous edits Water-level task Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=489193233 Contributors: Abb3w, Crosstemplejay, DBigXray, Jjron, Rjwilmsi, 1 Web-based experiments Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=495341000 Contributors: Acs272, Cander0000, Casey1632, Derek

anonymous edits

farn, Fabrictramp, Flippy45, Mattisse,

Pigironjoe, SteveLoughran, Tainter, Talnat, Vacognition, Whpq, 20 anonymous edits Wike's law of low odd primes Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=457510354 Contributors: Colapeninsula, Lova Falk, Melcombe, Michael Hardy, Purpleturple, Robert P.

O'Shea Wizards Project Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=510614906 Contributors: Apokrif,

Auric, Autochthonic, Bobbozzo, Ceejayoz, Cooie10, Dragice, Durin42, Gogobera, Judosaya, Michaelbusch, Misarxist, Ohiostandard, Oliver Crow, Psychish, RayBirks, Smyth, Uncle ovipositor, UofTPSYA02, Waldir, Wallagong, Wollogong, Xeno, 39 anonymous edits

Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors

148

Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors Image:Asch experiment.png Source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Asch_experiment.png License: GNU Free Documentation License

Contributors: Jtneill, Nyenyec

Image:Wistar rat.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Wistar_rat.jpg License: Public Domain Contributors: Janet Stephens (photographer) File:Bobo doll-en.svg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Bobo_doll-en.svg License: Creative Commons

Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Contributors: Bobo_doll_1.png: User:DMY derivative work: Sémhur (talk) File:Ganzfeld.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Ganzfeld.jpg License: Public Domain Contributors: Original uploader was Nealparr at en.wikipedia File:Illustration based on the filming of the Little Albert Experiment.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Illustration_based_on_the_filming_of_the_Little_Albert_Experiment.jpg License: Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Contributors: User:Galiaoffri File:Milgram Experiment v2.png Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Milgram_Experiment_v2.png License: GNU Free Documentation License Contributors: Original uploader was Expiring frog at en.wikipedia File:Milgram Experiment advertising.png Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Milgram_Experiment_advertising.png License: Public Domain Contributors: Poolisfun (talk) File:A-Virtual-Reprise-of-the-Stanley-Milgram-Obedience-Experiments-pone.0000039.s011.ogv Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:A-Virtual-Reprise-of-the-Stanley-Milgram-Obedience-Experiments-pone.0000039.s011.ogv License: Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 Contributors: Slater M, Antley A, Davison A, Swapp D, Guger C, Barker C, Pistrang N, Sanchez-Vives M, Rustichini A File:OF.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:OF.jpg License: Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Contributors: TaoPan File:Logo of the PEBL (Psychology Experiment Building Language) software system.png Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Logo_of_the_PEBL_(Psychology_Experiment_Building_Language)_software_system.png License: GNU General Public License Contributors: The PEBL Project File:Ppvt.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Ppvt.jpg License: Public Domain Contributors: PEBL Image:psychopy.png Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Psychopy.png License: Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Contributors: Jon.peirce Image:Addictiondependence1.gif Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Addictiondependence1.gif License: Public Domain Contributors: Kelly, Leyo, McZusatz, Was a bee Image:Ratselfinject.gif Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Ratselfinject.gif License: Public domain Contributors: Stefan Flöper File:Center building at Saint Elizabeths, August 23, 2006.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Center_building_at_Saint_Elizabeths,_August_23,_2006.jpg License: Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 2.5 Contributors: User:Tomf688 File:Six degrees of separation.svg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Six_degrees_of_separation.svg License: Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0 Contributors: Daniel' (User:Dannie-walker) File:Marshmallows in soft yellow and blue light.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Marshmallows_in_soft_yellow_and_blue_light.jpg License: Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Contributors: flattop341 from South Carolina, USA, 3rd Rock Image:Tone_variator.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Tone_variator.jpg License: GNU Free Documentation License Contributors: Brian0918, Cactus.man, Samir, Samuel Blanning Image:Tone variator from Max Kohl Catalogue, rack and pinion design.png Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Tone_variator_from_Max_Kohl_Catalogue,_rack_and_pinion_design.png License: Public Domain Contributors: Image:AC89-0437-20 a.jpeg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:AC89-0437-20_a.jpeg License: Public Domain Contributors: Antonu, Bayo, 1 anonymous edits

Experiments in Psychology

Recommend Documents