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

Psychology Experiments

ContentsArticles

Air-defense experiments 1Analog observation 2Asch conformity experiments 3Attrition (medicine, epidemiology) 5Behavioural despair test 5Blacky pictures 7User:Bdelsanto/sandbox 8Bobo doll experiment 15Cognitive chronometry 20Conflict procedure 20Cyranoid 22Eriksen flanker task 22Fordham Experiment 24Ganzfeld experiment 25Genetic Studies of Genius 30Hofling hospital experiment 33Implicit Association Test 34Independent measures 45Le Jeu de la Mort 46Laboratory experimentation 46Learned helplessness 47Lexical decision task 53Little Albert experiment 54Mackworth Clock 57Media violence research 58Metallic Metals Act 67MIDAS Trial 68Milgram experiment 68The Monster Study 77Naturalistic observation 81Nun Study 82Oddball paradigm 83Oklahoma City sonic boom tests 84Open Field (animal test) 86

PEBL (software) 87Pit of despair 89Project Pigeon 92Pseudoword 93Psychological statistics 94Psychomotor vigilance task 96PsychoPy 98PsyScope 99Rat Park 100Rosenhan experiment 105Rotarod performance test 109Small-world experiment 110Speech shadowing 116Stanford marshmallow experiment 117Stanford prison experiment 119Tail suspension test 126The Third Wave 128The Three Christs of Ypsilanti 131Tone variator 132Ulcers in Executive Monkeys 134Vignette (psychology) 135Virtual reality cue reactivity 136Water-level task 139Web-based experiments 139Wike's law of low odd primes 141Wizards Project 141

ReferencesArticle Sources and Contributors 144Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors 148

Article LicensesLicense 149

Air-defense experiments 1

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

Experiment structureThe series was constructed from 4 different experiments (code named Casey, Cowboy, Cobra, and Cogwheel). Thefirst of these (Casey) used college students as crew for the air defense scenario whilst members of the United StatesAir Force were used in the latter experiments. For each of the 4 experiments different structures and timespans wereused:• 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

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

Results and conclusionsThe experiment series generated a great deal of both qualitative and quantitative data and the results of earlierexperiments 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 alarge factor in team as well as individual performance. While an attempt had been made to approximate a militaryculture in the college student team, the researchers decided that use of actual military personnel would provide moresuccess. Hence later experiments used exclusively servicemen.The original experimental design was to provide a particular level of difficulty to determine how well the air-defenseteam was able learn the individual tasks as well as the intra-team coordination needed to be successful at theair-defense task. The research team also modified the experimental design after the results of Casey, these indicatedthat crews were able to learn rapidly and were able to accommodate the level of difficulty, within a few sessions, toan effective level.[2]

Beginning with Cowboy, the air-defense crews were presented with a series of sessions each of which had a highertask load than the previous session. The task load was made up of two variables, kind and number of hostile aircraftand 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 muchperformance difference resulted from learning, but they also showed how differently the same people used the same tools under essentially thesame load conditions at different times. The structures and procedures that glued functional components together so changed that anorganization was only nominally the same from day to day. ”

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.

ReferencesChapman, Robert L., Kennedy, John L., Newell, A., Biel, William C. (1959). The Systems Research Laboratory'sAir Defense Experiments. Management Science, Vol 5, No. 3 (Apr 1959).

Further readingArgyris, Chris; Donald Schon (1978). Organizational learning: a theory of action perspective. Addison-WesleyPublishing 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 observationAnalog observation is, in contrast to naturalistic observation, a research tool by which a subject is observed in anartificial setting.[1] Typically, types of settings in which analog observation is utilized include clinical offices orresearch laboratories, but, by definition, analog observations can be made in any artificial environment, even if theenvironment is one which the subject is likely to encounter naturally.

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

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 3

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

Methodology

One of the pairs of cards used in the experiment. The card on the left hasthe reference line and the one on the right shows the three comparison

lines.

Experiments led by Solomon Asch of SwarthmoreCollege asked groups of students to participate in a"vision test." In reality, all but one of theparticipants were confederates of the experimenter,and the study was really about how the remainingstudent would react to the confederates' behavior.

Each participant was put into a group with 5 to 7"confederates" (people who knew the true aims ofthe experiment, but were introduced as participantsto the naive "real" participant). The participantswere shown a card with a line on it, followed byanother card with 3 lines on it labeled A, B, and C.The participants were then asked to say which linematched the line on the first card in length. Eachline question was called a "trial". The "real"participant answered last or next to last. For thefirst two trials, the participant would feel at ease inthe experiment, as he and the confederates gave the obvious, correct answer. On the third trial, the confederateswould all give the same wrong answer. There were 18 trials in total and the confederates answered incorrectly for 12of them. These 12 were known as the "critical trials". The aim was to see whether the real participant would changehis answer and respond in the same way as the confederates, despite it being the wrong answer.

ResultsIn a control group, with no pressure to conform to an erroneous view, only one participant out of 35 ever gave anincorrect answer. Solomon Asch hypothesized that the majority of participants would not conform to somethingobviously wrong; however, when surrounded by individuals all voicing an incorrect answer, participants providedincorrect responses on a high proportion of the questions (32%). Seventy-five percent of the participants gave anincorrect answer to at least one question.Variations of the basic paradigm tested how many cohorts were necessary to induce conformity, examining theinfluence of just one cohort and as many as fifteen. Results indicate that one cohort has virtually no influence andtwo cohorts have only a small influence. When three or more cohorts are present, the tendency to conform increasesonly modestly. The maximum effect occurs with four cohorts. Adding additional cohorts does not produce a strongereffect.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

Asch conformity experiments 4

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

Interpretations

Public conformity vs. social influenceThe Asch conformity experiments are often interpreted as evidence for the power of conformity and normative socialinfluence.[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 latterperspective, the Asch conformity experiments are cited as evidence for the self-categorization theory account ofsocial influence. From that perspective the Asch results are interpreted as an outcome of depersonalization processeswhereby the participants expect to hold the same opinions as similar others.[2][5]

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

References[1][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][3] Turner, J. C. (1991). Social influence. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.[4][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][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) linejudgment 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.

Asch conformity experiments 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 thatindicate participant drop out. Higher attrition rates are found in longitudinal studies.

Behavioural despair test

Animal testing

Main articlesAnimal testing

Alternatives to animal testingTesting on: invertebrates

frogs · primatesrabbits · rodents

Animal testing regulationsHistory of animal testing

History of model organismsIACUC

Laboratory animal sourcesPain and suffering in lab animals

Testing cosmetics on animalsToxicology testing

Vivisection

IssuesBiomedical Research

Animal rights/Animal welfareAnimals (Scientific Procedures)

Great ape research banInternational trade in primates

Behavioural despair test 6

Controversial experimentsBritches · Brown Dog affair

Cambridge University primatesPit of despair

Silver Spring monkeysUnnecessary Fuss

CompaniesJackson Laboratory

Charles River Laboratories, Inc.Covance · Harlan

Huntingdon Life SciencesUK lab animal suppliersNafovanny · Shamrock

Groups/campaignsAALAS · AAAS · ALF

Americans for Medical ProgressBoyd Group · BUAV

Dr Hadwen TrustFoundation for Biomedical

Research · FRAMENational Anti-Vivisection Society

PETA · Physicians Committeefor Responsible MedicinePrimate Freedom Project

Pro-TestSPEAK · SHAC

Speaking of ResearchUnderstanding Animal Research

Writers/activistsTipu Aziz · Michael Balls

Neal Barnard · Colin BlakemoreSimon Festing · Gill Langley

Ingrid Newkirk · Bernard RollinJerry Vlasak · Syed Ziaur Rahman

CategoriesAnimal testing · Animal rights

Animal welfare

Related templatesTemplate:Animal rights

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

Behavioural despair test 7

MethodAnimals are subjected to two trials during which they are forced to swim in an acrylic glass cylinder filled withwater, and from which they cannot escape. The first trial lasts 15 minutes. Then, after 24-hours, a second trial isperformed 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 interpretationClassically, the results of this test have been interpreted such that immobility in the second test is a behaviouralcorrelate of negative mood, representing a kind of hopelessness in the animal. However, there is some debatebetween scientists whether increased immobility instead demonstrates a learning within the animal and a positivebehavioural adaptation, i.e. the animal has learnt it can't escape and is conserving energy until it is removed by theexperimenter. As for any behavioral paradigm, it is extremely important to display the appropriate control groupswhen presenting results obtained using the forced swimming test. The terms of "behavioural despair test" bears ananthropomorphic connotation. Strictly speaking, the descriptive terms "forced swimming test" should be usedpreferentially.

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 picturesThe Blacky pictures were a series of picture cards used by psychoanalysts in mid-Twentieth century America andelsewhere to investigate the extent to which children's personalities were shaped by Freudian psychosexualdevelopment. The drawings depicted a family of cartoon dogs in situations relating to psychoanalytic theory. Themain character, 'Blacky', was accompanied by Tippy, a sibling, and a mother and father. Blacky's sex was decided bythe 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 asan anal personality, castration anxiety or penis envy.The Blacky pictures' worth as a source of experimental data was questioned by psychologists, among them HansEysenck, and they since have fallen out of use.

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

User:Bdelsanto/sandbox 8

User:Bdelsanto/sandboxAggression, in its abundance of forms, is arguably the greatest social problem facing this country and the worldtoday (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 (Hock2009)[1], The Bobo Doll Experiment. The Bobo Doll Experiment was the name of two experiments conducted byAlbert Bandura in 1961 and 1963 studying children´s behavior after watching a model punching a Bobo Doll andgetting rewarded, punished or no consequences for it.The experiment is the empirical demonstration of Bandura's social learning theory, which states that behavior islearned from the environment through the process of observational learning. Children observe the people aroundthem 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 widelydistributed. In an article by Tom Zeller (2007)[3] families around the world whose children had been exposed to thevideo 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 morestudies on the effects of social learning theory, such as the effects of media violence and aggression in children. Thistopic has become exceptionally popular in recent years as more and more violence has been allowed on televisionand videos games that children are subject to viewing. " In 1972, the Surgeon General's Scientific AdvisoryCommittee on Television and Social Behavior concluded that television can, under some circumstances, for somechildren, 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 connectionbetween viewing television and aggression. These researchers were also successful in, controlling for factors such associoeconomic status, intelligence, race, and mother's education, which did not eliminate the relationship betweenmedia 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-timetelevision and 20 to 25 violent acts are depicted in an average hour of children's television. Research has alsoindicated 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 childrenwere between the ages of 37 months- 69 months. The children were organized into 8 groups and a control group. 24children were exposed to an aggressive model and 24 children were exposed to a non-aggressive model. The twogroups were then both broken down into males and females. The groups were broken down even further to ensurethat half of the children were exposed to models of their own sex and the other half were exposed to models of theopposite 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 byclassmates. The first part of the experiment involved bringing a child and the adult model into a playroom. In theplayroom, the child was seated in one corner filled with highly appealing activities such as stickers and stamps.Theadult model was seated in another corner containing a toy set, a mallet, and an inflatable Bobo doll. Before leavingthe room, the experimenter explained to the child that the toys in the adult corner were only for the adult to playwith.

User:Bdelsanto/sandbox 9

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 Bobodoll and using the toy mallet to hit the Bobo doll in the face. After a period of about 10 minutes, the experimentercame back into the room, dismissed the adult model, and took the child into another playroom. The non-aggressiveadult model simply played with the small toys for the entire 10 minute-period. In this situation, the Bobo doll wascompletely 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, andspinning top. There, the child was invited to play with the toys. After about 2 minutes the experimenter decides thatthe child is no longer allowed to play with the toys. This was done to build up frustration. The experimenter says thatthe child may play with the toys in the experimental room including both aggressive and non-aggressive toys. In theexperimental room the child was allowed to play for the duration of 20 minutes while the experimenter evaluated thechild’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 secondmeasure recorded. The judges counted each time the children imitated the aggressive adult model and recorded theirresults. The third measure was the amount of times the mallet was used to display other forms of aggression thanhitting the doll. The final measure includes modes of aggression shown by the child that were not direct imitation ofthe role-model’s behavior.

Results

Bandura found that the children exposed to the aggressive model were more likely to act in physically aggressiveways 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). Theresults concerning gender differences strongly supported Bandura's prediction that children are more influenced bysame-sex models. Boys exhibited more aggression when exposed to aggressive male models than boys exposed toaggressive female models. When exposed to aggressive male models, the number of aggressive instances exhibitedby boys averaged 104 compared to 48.4 aggressive instances exhibited by boys exposed to aggressive femalemodels.While the results for the girls show similar findings, the results were less drastic. When exposed to aggressive femalemodels, the number of aggressive instances exhibited by girls averaged 57.7 compared to 36.3 aggressive instancesexhibited 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 aggressiveways than those who were not exposed to the aggressive model. The number of imitative verbal aggressionsexhibited by the boys was 17 times and 15.7 times by the girls(Hock 2009). In addition, the results indicated that theboys and girls who observed the non-aggressive model exhibited far less non-imitative mallet aggression than in thecontrol group, which had no model.The experimenters came to the conclusion that children observing adult behavior are influenced to think that thistype of behavior is acceptable thus weakening the child’s aggressive inhibitions. The result of reduced aggressiveinhibitions 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 allinstances of aggression are tallied, males exhibited 270 aggressive instances compared to 128 aggressive instancesexhibited by females (Hock 2009).

User:Bdelsanto/sandbox 10

Critique

Scholars such as Ferguson (2010) [6] suggest the Bobo Doll studies are not studies of aggression at all, but rather thatthe children were motivated to imitate the adult in the belief the videos were instructions. In other words childrenwere motivated by the desire to please adults rather than genuine aggression. Furthermore Ferguson has criticized theexternal 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 biasBandura’s subjects were all from the nursery of Stanford University. During the 1960s, the opportunity ofstudying in a university, especially one as prestigious as Stanford was a privilege that only the upper-middleclass whites had. Besides, the racial bias and economic status of the whites and blacks were still very vast atthat time. Generally only the upper-middle class and rich whites were able to afford putting their children in anursery. Thus, the subjects would turn out to be mostly white and of similar backgrounds.

2. Unclear history of subjectsThe ethnicities of the subjects were never documented but Bandura and his colleagues made sweepingstatements on their findings when explaining the aggression and violence trait among subgroups and lowersocioeconomic communities.

3. Ambiguous temporal sequenceAs the data of the “real life aggression and control group conditions came from their 1961 study”,[7] parallelongoing events including the mental maturation of the subjects could have been confused with theobservations and results of the 1963 study.

Bar-on, Broughton, Buttross, Corrigan, et al. (2001) explained that the underdeveloped frontal lobe of childrenbelow the age of 8 causes them to be unable to separate reality from fantasy. As an example, children up to the ageof 12 believe that there are monsters in their closet or under the bed. They are also sometimes unable to distinguishdreams from reality.[8]

Furthermore, biological theorists argue that the social learning theory completely ignores individual’s biological stateby 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 weremanipulated to respond in an aggressive manner. They also find it to be no surprise that long-term implications areapparent due to the methods imposed in this experiment as the subjects were taunted and were not allowed to playwith 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 asPlagens et al.’s 1991 study on violent movies, “Feshbach and R.D. Singer believed that television actually decreasesthe amount of aggression in children” (Islom, 1998) – Catharsis effect. A study was made on juvenile boys for sixweeks. Half were made to view violent movies throughout the period of six weeks while another half viewednon-violent movies for six weeks. The boy’s behavior was then observed and the result was boys who viewed violentmovies were less aggressive than those who viewed non-violent movies. The conclusion drawn by Feshback andSinger was that those who viewed violent movies were less aggressive as they were able to transmit all their feelingsand thoughts of aggression into the movie.

User:Bdelsanto/sandbox 11

Experiments in 1963

Differences between learning and performingAlbert Bandura tested in the Bobo doll experiment in 1963 if there are differences in learning or just in performingwhen 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 yearswatched a film - a mediated model punched and screamed aggressively at a Bobo doll. Depending on theexperimental group the film ended with a scene in which the model was rewarded with candies or punished with thewarning “Don´t do it again”. In the neutral condition the film ended right after the punching scene.Then the childrenstayed in a room with many toys and a Bobo doll. The experimenter found that the children showed less often similarbehavior to the model when they were shown the clip that ended with the punching scene as compared to the otherconditions. Boys showed more imitative aggression than girls. That is the measure of the performance and it supportsthe 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 experimentwith the same procedure the children were asked to describe the behavior. But imitation seems to be a better indexfor learning.) He did not find differences in the children´s demonstrating behavior depending on the movie. Theexperiment shows that rewards or punishment don´t influence learning or remembering information, they justinfluence if the behavior is performed or not. The differences between girls‘ and boys‘ imitating behavior gotsmaller. 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 aggressivebehavior. In one study [12], in 1963, Albert Bandura, using children between the ages 3 and 6, tested the extent towhich 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 modelbecome aggressive towards the Bobo doll. Group 2, watched a film version of the human model become aggressiveto the Bobo doll and group 3 watched a cartoon version of a cat become aggressive towards the Bobo doll. Eachchild watched the aggressive acts individually. Following the exposure to the models all fours groups of childrenwere then individually placed in a room with an experimenter where they were exposed to mildly frustratingsituation to elicit aggression. Next the children were allowed to play freely in an adjoining room, which was full oftoys, including the Bobo doll and the “weapons” that were used by the models. The researchers observed the childrenand 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 orcartoon, exhibited nearly twice as much aggressive behavior than the control group. It was also found that boysexhibited more total aggression than girls. The results of this experiment shed light on how influential media can beon children and their behavior.

User:Bdelsanto/sandbox 12

Variations of the 'Bobo doll' experimentDue to numerous criticisms, Bandura replaced the ‘Bobo doll’ with a live clown. The young woman beat up a liveclown in the video shown to preschool children and in turn when the children were led into another room where theyfound 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 theirfeelings.[14]

Variation 2:Loye, Gorney & Steele (1977) conducted variation of the ‘Bobo Doll’ Experiment using 183 married malesaged 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 weekwhile their wives secretly observed and recorded their behavior; helpful vs. hurtful behaviors when notwatching the program.Result: Participants of violent programs showed significant increase in aggressive moods and “hurtfulbehavior” while participants who viewed pro-social programs were more passive and demonstrated asignificant increase of “emotional arousal”.

Variation 3:Black and Bevan’s research (1992) had movie-goers fill out an aggression questionnaire either before theyentered 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 askedto 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 wasaggravated 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 fictionfirst-person shooter game and Tetris. Results of this study were inconsistent, and this study has sometimesbeen criticized for using poorly validated aggression measures, and exaggerating the consistency of itsfindings (Ferguson, 2009).

Variation 5:Bartholow and Anderson (2009)[15], examined how playing violent video games affect levels of aggression in alaboratory.Procedure: A total of 22 men and 21 women were randomly assigned to play either a violent or non-violent videogame for ten minutes. Then competed in a reaction time task . Punishment level set by opponents measuredaggression.Results: The results supported the researchers hypothesis that playing the violent video game would result in moreaggression than the non-violent game. In addition, results also pointed to a potential difference in aggressive stylebetween men and women.

User:Bdelsanto/sandbox 13

DiscussionFrom this experiment, Bandura established that there are 4 processes that are apparent in the modeling process[13]

1. AttentionOne has to be paying attention and not distracted to be able to absorb knowledge. Physical factors such asbeing 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 thinkingof his/her loved one. All else is a blur; hear but not listening, see but not looking, eat but not tasting, breathingbut not smelling and so on.

2. RetentionThe proof that one has been paying attention is when one is able to remember the intended stimuli. Imageryand 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. ReproductionThis stage of modeling another requires one to have the ability to duplicate the action or/and behavior. Awheelchair bound person would not be able to duplicate a person doing cartwheels but one who is able to useall their limbs might be able to improve their cartwheel techniques after watching the video of a gymnastdoing cartwheels. Similarly, after acquiring the ability to draw, one can improve their skills by watching anexpert 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. “Ourabilities improve even when we just imagine ourselves performing! Many athletes, for example, imagine theirperformance in their mind’s eye prior to actually performing”,[16]

4. Motivationa. Nonetheless, the most important part of the modeling process is motivation! If one is not motivated toemulate an action or behavior, attention would not be there to start with. According to Bandura, there are twocategories of motives[17] -positive [Past reinforcements, Promised reinforcements and Vicariousreinforcements] and negative [Past punishment, Promised punishment and vicarious punishment] both ofwhich are based on traditional behaviorism such as BF Skinner’s Operant Conditioning and Pavlov’s ClassicalConditioning. 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 ofreinforcement without really knowing it. "When Jasmine had to leave the sand table for pouring sand on thefloor, show was enactively punished. Tyler, Mackensie, and Juan were vicariously punished by observingJasmine, 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. Sofar, all the variations of Bandura’s Bobo Doll Experiment have only focused on a maximum of three importantfactors; a combination of background, personal temperament, environment, interpersonal and intrapersonalrelationships. 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 alongitudinal assessment, Bandura’s hypothesis is still on the fence.

User:Bdelsanto/sandbox 14

=See also•• Developmental Psychology•• Imitation•• Observational Learning•• Role model

References[1][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+. RetrievedOctober 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 adolescenceand 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 GeneralPsychology, 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 ofDevelopmental 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][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][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][16] Boeree[17][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

Bobo doll experiment 15

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

Experiments in 1961

Method

The subjects for this experiment[1] were 36 boys and 36 girls from the Stanford University nursery school. Allchildren were between the ages of 37 months- 69 months. The children were organized into 8 groups and a controlgroup. 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 tomodels of their own sex and the other half were exposed to models of the opposite sex. The remaining 24 childrenwere part of a control group.For the experiment, each child was exposed to the scenario individually, so as not to be influenced or distracted byclassmates. The first part of the experiment involved bringing a child and the adult model into a playroom. In theplayroom, the child was seated in one corner filled with highly appealing activities such as stickers and stamps.Theadult model was seated in another corner containing a toy set, a mallet, and an inflatable Bobo doll. Before leavingthe room, the experimenter explained to the child that the toys in the adult corner were only for the adult to playwith.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 includedhitting/punching the Bobo doll and using the toy mallet to hit the Bobo doll in the face. The aggressive model wouldalso 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 theentire 10 minute-period. In this situation, the Bobo doll was completely ignored by the model, then the child wastaken out of the room.The next stage of the experiment, took place with the child and experimenter in another room filled with interestingtoy such as trucks, dolls, and a spinning top. The child was invited to play with them. After about 2 minutes theexperimenter decides that the child is no longer allowed to play with the toys, explaining that she is reserving thattoy for the other children. This was done to build up frustration in the child. The experimenter said that the childcould instead play with the toys in the experimental room (this included both aggressive and non-aggressive toys). Inthe experimental room the child was allowed to play for the duration of 20 minutes while the experimenter evaluatedthe 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

Bobo doll experiment 16

final measure included modes of aggression shown by the child that were not direct imitation of the role-model’sbehavior.

Results

Bandura found that the children exposed to the aggressive model were more likely to act in physically aggressiveways 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). Theresults concerning gender differences strongly supported Bandura's prediction that children are more influenced bysame-sex models. Results also showed that boys exhibited more aggression when exposed to aggressive male modelsthan boys exposed to aggressive female models. When exposed to aggressive male models, the number of aggressiveinstances exhibited by boys averaged 104 compared to 48.4 aggressive instances exhibited by boys who wereexposed to aggressive female models.While the results for the girls show similar findings, the results were less drastic. When exposed to aggressive femalemodels, the number of aggressive instances exhibited by girls averaged 57.7 compared to 36.3 aggressive instancesexhibited 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 aggressiveways than those who were not exposed to the aggressive model. The number of imitative verbal aggressionsexhibited by the boys was 17 times and 15.7 times by the girls(Hock 2009). In addition, the results indicated that theboys and girls who observed the non-aggressive model exhibited far less non-imitative mallet aggression than in thecontrol group, which had no model.The experimenters came to the conclusion that children observing adult behavior are influenced to think that thistype of behavior is acceptable thus weakening the child’s aggressive inhibitions. The result of reduced aggressiveinhibitions 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 allinstances of aggression are tallied, males exhibited 270 aggressive instances compared to 128 aggressive instancesexhibited 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 thatthe children were motivated to imitate the adult in the belief the videos were instructions. In other words childrenwere motivated by the desire to please adults rather than genuine aggression. Furthermore Ferguson has criticized theexternal 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 biasBandura’s subjects were all from the nursery of Stanford University. During the 1960s, the opportunity ofstudying in a university, especially one as prestigious as Stanford was a privilege that only the upper-middleclass whites had. Besides, the racial bias and economic status of the whites and blacks were still very vast atthat time. Generally only the upper-middle class and rich whites were able to afford putting their children in anursery. Thus, the subjects would turn out to be mostly white and of similar backgrounds.

2. Unclear history of subjectsThe ethnicities of the subjects were never documented but Bandura and his colleagues made sweepingstatements on their findings when explaining the aggression and violence trait among subgroups and lowersocioeconomic communities.

3. Ambiguous temporal sequence

Bobo doll experiment 17

As the data of the “real life aggression and control group conditions came from their 1961 study”,[3] parallelongoing events including the mental maturation of the subjects could have been confused with theobservations and results of the 1963 study.

Bar-on, Broughton, Buttross, Corrigan, et al. (2001) explained that the underdeveloped frontal lobe of childrenbelow the age of 8 causes them to be unable to separate reality from fantasy. As an example, children up to the ageof 12 believe that there are monsters in their closet or under the bed. They are also sometimes unable to distinguishdreams from reality.[4]

Furthermore, biological theorists argue that the social learning theory completely ignores individual’s biological stateby 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 weremanipulated to respond in an aggressive manner. They also find it to be no surprise that long-term implications areapparent due to the methods imposed in this experiment as the subjects were taunted and were not allowed to playwith 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 asPlagens et al.’s 1991 study on violent movies, “Feshbach and R.D. Singer believed that television actually decreasesthe amount of aggression in children” (Islom, 1998) – Catharsis effect. A study was made on juvenile boys for sixweeks. Half were made to view violent movies throughout the period of six weeks while another half viewednon-violent movies for six weeks. The boy’s behavior was then observed and the result was boys who viewed violentmovies were less aggressive than those who viewed non-violent movies. The conclusion drawn by Feshback andSinger was that those who viewed violent movies were less aggressive as they were able to transmit all their feelingsand thoughts of aggression into the movie.

Experiments in 1963

Differences between learning and performingAlbert Bandura tested in the Bobo doll experiment in 1963 if there are differences in learning or just in performingwhen 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 yearswatched a film - a mediated model punched and screamed aggressively at a Bobo doll. Depending on theexperimental group the film ended with a scene in which the model was rewarded with candies or punished with thewarning “Don´t do it again”. In the neutral condition the film ended right after the punching scene.Then the childrenstayed in a room with many toys and a Bobo doll. The experimenter found that the children showed less often similarbehavior to the model when they were shown the clip that ended with the punching scene as compared to the otherconditions. Boys showed more imitative aggression than girls. That is the measure of the performance and it supportsthe 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 experimentwith the same procedure the children were asked to describe the behavior. But imitation seems to be a better indexfor learning.) He did not find differences in the children´s demonstrating behavior depending on the movie. Theexperiment shows that rewards or punishment don´t influence learning or remembering information, they justinfluence if the behavior is performed or not. The differences between girls‘ and boys‘ imitating behavior gotsmaller. That is a sign of the fact that girls inhibit the punished behavior more than boys do.[7]

Bobo doll experiment 18

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 aggressivebehavior. In one study [8], in 1963, Albert Bandura, using children between the ages 3 and 6, tested the extent towhich 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 modelbecome aggressive towards the Bobo doll. Group 2, watched a film version of the human model become aggressiveto the Bobo doll and group 3 watched a cartoon version of a cat become aggressive towards the Bobo doll. Eachchild watched the aggressive acts individually. Following the exposure to the models all fours groups of childrenwere then individually placed in a room with an experimenter where they were exposed to a mildly frustratingsituation to elicit aggression. Next the children were allowed to play freely in an adjoining room, which was full oftoys, including the Bobo doll and the “weapons” that were used by the models. The researchers observed the childrenand 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 orcartoon, exhibited nearly twice as much aggressive behavior than the control group. It was also found that boysexhibited more overall aggression than girls. The results of this experiment shed light on how influential media canbe on children and their behavior.

Variations of the 'Bobo doll' experimentDue to numerous criticisms, Bandura replaced the ‘Bobo doll’ with a live clown. The young woman beat up a liveclown in the video shown to preschool children and in turn when the children were led into another room where theyfound 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 theirfeelings.[10]

Variation 2:Loye, Gorney & Steele (1977) conducted variation of the ‘Bobo Doll’ Experiment using 183 married malesaged 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 weekwhile their wives secretly observed and recorded their behavior; helpful vs. hurtful behaviors when notwatching the program.Result: Participants of violent programs showed significant increase in aggressive moods and “hurtfulbehavior” while participants who viewed pro-social programs were more passive and demonstrated asignificant increase of “emotional arousal”.

Variation 3:Black and Bevan’s research (1992) had movie-goers fill out an aggression questionnaire either before theyentered 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 askedto 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 wasaggravated after the viewing while there was no change in those who viewed romantic films.

Variation 4:

Bobo doll experiment 19

Anderson & Dill (2000) randomly assigned college students to play two games; Wolfenstein, a science fictionfirst-person shooter game and Tetris. Results of this study were inconsistent, and this study has sometimesbeen criticized for using poorly validated aggression measures, and exaggerating the consistency of itsfindings (Ferguson, 2009).

Variation 5:Bartholow and Anderson (2009)[11], examined how playing violent video games affect levels of aggression in alaboratory.Procedure: A total of 22 men and 21 women were randomly assigned to play either a violent or non-violent videogame for ten minutes. Then competed in a reaction time task . Punishment level set by opponents measuredaggression.Results: The results supported the researchers hypothesis that playing the violent video game would result in moreaggression than the non-violent game. In addition, results also pointed to a potential difference in aggressive stylebetween men and women.

Bobo Doll

Bobo doll-en

A Bobo doll is an inflatable toy that is about 5 feet tall and is usuallymade of a soft durable vinyl or plastic. The bobo doll was most oftenpainted to look like a clown. The doll was designed to be bottomweighted so that if it were hit, it would fall over then immediately liftback 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 forGood?", Christopher J. Ferguson, Review of General Psychology, 14, 68-81

[3] Hart, K.E. (2006). Critical Analysis of an Original Writing on Social LearningTheory: 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 ofDevelopmental 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][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][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.

Cognitive chronometry 20

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

Conflict procedure

Animal testing

Main articlesAnimal testing

Alternatives to animal testingTesting on: invertebrates

frogs · primatesrabbits · rodents

Animal testing regulationsHistory of animal testing

History of model organismsIACUC

Laboratory animal sourcesPain and suffering in lab animals

Testing cosmetics on animalsToxicology testing

Vivisection

IssuesBiomedical Research

Animal rights/Animal welfareAnimals (Scientific Procedures)

Great ape research banInternational trade in primates

Controversial experimentsBritches · Brown Dog affair

Cambridge University primatesPit of despair

Silver Spring monkeysUnnecessary Fuss

CompaniesJackson Laboratory

Charles River Laboratories, Inc.Covance · Harlan

Huntingdon Life SciencesUK lab animal suppliersNafovanny · Shamrock

Conflict procedure 21

Groups/campaignsAALAS · AAAS · ALF

Americans for Medical ProgressBoyd Group · BUAV

Dr Hadwen TrustFoundation for Biomedical

Research · FRAMENational Anti-Vivisection Society

PETA · Physicians Committeefor Responsible MedicinePrimate Freedom Project

Pro-TestSPEAK · SHAC

Speaking of ResearchUnderstanding Animal Research

Writers/activistsTipu Aziz · Michael Balls

Neal Barnard · Colin BlakemoreSimon Festing · Gill Langley

Ingrid Newkirk · Bernard RollinJerry Vlasak · Syed Ziaur Rahman

CategoriesAnimal testing · Animal rights

Animal welfare

Related templatesTemplate:Animal rights

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

References

Cyranoid 22

CyranoidCyranoids are "people who do not speak thoughts originating in their own central nervous system: Rather, the wordsthey speak originate in the mind of another person who transmits these words to the cyranoid by radiotransmission.".[1] The 'cyranoid' concept was created by psychologist Stanley Milgram, who during the late 1970sexperimented with various social authority/obedience phenomena involving cyranoids. He showed the 'cyranicillusion', namely, that people are very reluctant to believe that someone they are face-to-face with is being told whatto say by an in-the-ear radio.There are many possible cyranoid configurations.[2] Given that the cyranoid is controlled by a source and interactswith a target the possible configurations are possible: the cyranoid is known/unknown to the target or source; thetarget 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 Christianfrom hiding, as Christian attempts to woo Roxane.[1][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 taskThe term Eriksen Flanker Task refers to a set of response inhibition tests used in cognitive psychology to assess theability 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 whichcorrespond 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.

VersionsIn the original test described by Eriksen and Eriksen in 1974,[1] letter stimuli were used. Subjects were instructed tomake a directional responses to certain letters, for example a right response to the letters H and K, and a leftresponse 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 flankerscorrespond to the same response. Examples of incongruent flanker stimuli HHHSHHH and CCCHCCC , where thecentral target letter and the flankers correspond to opposite responses. Other variants have used numbers,[2] or colourpatches [3] as stimuli.These examples all use an arbitrary mapping between the stimulus and the response. Another possibility is to use anatural mapping, with arrows as stimuli. For example, Kopp et al. (1994)[4] used left and right arrows, with flankerstimuli 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 arrangedin a horizontal array, as with letter stumuli,so <<<<< would be a congruent stimulus, <<><< an incongruent stimulus.[5]

Eriksen flanker task 23

StudiesThe flanker paradigm was originally introduced as a way of studying the cognitive processes involved in detectionand recognition of targets in the presence of distracting information, or "noise". Earlier work had used visualsearch,[6] but this makes it difficult to separate the effects of distraction from the effects of the search process. In theflanker paradigm, the position of the target is always known—there is no search process. Nonetheless interferencestill occurs, so it can be studied independently of search mechanisms. Eriksen and Schultz (1979)[7] varied a numberof features of the flanker tests, for example the size and contrast of the letters, or the use of forward or backwardmasking. They proposed a continuous flow model of perception in which information is processed in parallel fordifferent stimulus elements, and accumulates over time until sufficient information is available to determine aresponse. More recent work in this area has used neurophysiological measures such as event-related potentials [8] orimaging techniques such as fMRI.[9]

Many studies have investigated the effects of acute drug administration on Eriksen flanker performance. Forexample, Ramaekers et al. (1992) [10] used an on-the-road driving tests, and several laboratory tests including theletter version of the Eriksen task to assess the effects of two antihistamines and alcohol on driving-related skills. Theflanker test was considered relevant, because dealing with distracting information is an important part of safedriving. Both alcohol and the antihistamine cetirizine impaired performance in the test measures, and their effectswere additive. The non-sedating antihistamine loratidine had no effect on any of the measures studied. The arrowsversion of the flanker test has also been evaluated as a method of detecting impairment due to alcohol and drugs indrivers at the roadside.[11]

Various psychiatric and neurological conditions affect performance on flanker tasks, for example acuteschizophrenia [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.

Fordham Experiment 24

Fordham ExperimentThe Fordham Experiment was an experiment done as part of a course on The Effects of Television by EricMcLuhan and Harley Parker at Fordham University in 1967 or 1968. The purpose of the experiment was todemonstrate to the students that there was a difference between the effects of movies and those of TV on anaudience, 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 TVpicture is back lit ('light through'). The experimenters showed two movies, a documentary and a film with little storyline about horses, sequentially to two groups of equivalent size, and had the viewers write a half a page of commentsof 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, ascompared 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 senseand an increase in tactile sense.Although this experiment has validity, it does not deal directly with the central point made by Marshall McLuhanthat 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 ahigher 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

Ganzfeld experiment 25

Ganzfeld experiment

Participant in a ganzfeld telepathy experiment

A ganzfeld experiment (from the German for “entire field”) is atechnique used in the field of parapsychology to test individuals forextrasensory perception (ESP). It uses homogeneous and unpatternedsensory stimulation to produce the ganzfeld effect, an effect similar tosensory deprivation.[1] The ganzfeld effect has been utilized in manystudies of the neuroscience of perception, not only parapsychology.The deprivation of patterned sensory input is said to be conducive toinwardly generated impressions.[2] The technique was devised byWolfgang Metzger in the 1930s as part of his investigation into thegestalt theory.[3]

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

Historical contextThe ganzfeld experiments are among the most recent in parapsychology for testing the existence of and affectingfactors of telepathy, which is defined in parapsychology as the paranormal acquisition of information concerning thethoughts, feelings or activity of another person.[8] In the early 1970s, Charles Honorton had been investigating ESPand dreams at the Maimonides Medical Center and began using the ganzfeld technique as a more efficient way toachieve a state of sensory deprivation in which it is hypothesised that psi can work.[9] Since the first full experimentwas published by Honorton and Sharon Harper in the Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research in1974, the ganzfeld has remained a mainstay of parapsychological research.

Experimental procedureIn a typical ganzfeld experiment, a "receiver" is placed in a room relaxing in a comfortable chair with halvedping-pong balls over the eyes, having a red light shone on them. The receiver also wears a set of headphones throughwhich 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 thereceiver. The receiver speaks out loud during the thirty minutes, describing what he or she can see. This is recordedby the experimenter (who is blind to the target) either by recording onto tape or by taking notes, and is used to helpthe 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, fromwhich they must decide which one most resembled the images they witnessed. Most commonly there are threedecoys along with a copy of the target itself, giving an expected overall hit rate of 25% over several dozens oftrials.[10]

Ganzfeld experiment 26

Analysis of results

Early experimentsBetween 1974 and 1982, 42 ganzfeld experiments were performed.[11][12] In 1982, Charles Honorton presented apaper at the annual convention of the Parapsychological Association that summarized the results of the ganzfeldexperiments up to that date, and concluded that they represented sufficient evidence to demonstrate the existence ofpsi. 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 existenceof psi, and Hyman did not.[11][13]

Hyman's criticisms were that the ganzfeld papers did not describe optimal protocols, nor were they alwaysaccompanied by the appropriate statistical analysis. He presented in his paper a factor analysis that he saiddemonstrated a link between success and three flaws, namely: Flaws in randomization for choice of target; flaws inrandomization 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 afactor analysis.[14]

In 1986, Hyman and Honorton published A Joint Communiqué, in which they agreed that though the results of theganzfeld experiments were not due to chance or selective reporting, replication of the studies was necessary beforefinal conclusions could be drawn. They also agreed that more stringent standards were necessary for ganzfeldexperiments, and they jointly specified what those standards should be.[15]

Post-Joint CommuniquéIn 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 jointcommuniqué 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, andpronounced them to provide excellent security against deception by subjects.[17] In addition to randomizationconsistent with the specifications of the communiqué, and computer control of the main elements of each test, theseautoganzfeld experiments isolated the receiver in a sound-proof steel-walled and electromagnetically shieldedroom.[18]

The PRL trials continued until September 1989. Of the 354 trials, 122 produced direct hits. This 34% hit rate wasstatistically similar to the 37% hit rate of the 1985 meta-analysis. These experiments were statistically significantwith a z score of 3.89, which corresponds to a 1 in 45,000 probability of obtaining a hit rate of at least 34% bychance (mean chance expectation is 25%).[16][18]

Concerning these results, Hyman wrote that the final verdict of whether psi can be demonstrated in the ganzfeldawaited 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 andRichard Wiseman carried out a meta-analysis of ganzfeld experiments carried out in other laboratories. They foundno 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

Ganzfeld experiment 27

2.59.[21]

In a 1995 paper discussing some of the challenges, deficiencies and achievements of modern laboratoryparapsychology Ray Hyman said,

Obviously, I do not believe that the contemporary findings of parapsychology, [...] justify concluding thatanomalous mental phenomena have been proven. [...] [A]cceptable evidence for the presence of anomalouscognition must be based on a positive theory that tells us when psi should and should not be present. Until wehave such a theory, the claim that anomalous cognition has been demonstrated is empty.[...] I want to state thatI believe that the SAIC experiments as well as the contemporary ganzfeld experiments display methodologicaland statistical sophistication well above previous parapsychological research. Despite better controls andcareful use of statistical inference, the investigators seem to be getting significant results that do not appear toderive from the more obvious flaws of previous research.—Ray Hyman, The Journal of Parapsychology, December 1995[22]

Contemporary researchThe ganzfeld procedure has continued to be refined over the years. In its current incarnation, an automated computersystem is used to select and display the targets ("digital autoganzfeld"). This overcomes many of the shortcomings ofearlier 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. Ofthe 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 werefound to perform significantly better than unselected participants in the ganzfeld condition.[24]

Psi-conducive variablesParapsychologists 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 tounselected participants.[24] Traits and characteristics of subjects thought to increase the chance of obtaining asuccessful 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 inpredicting the outcome of these studies. An increasing number of researchers have moved towards moreprocess-oriented experiments, and personality factors give the potential for directional, falsifiable hypotheses, a partof the scientific process that critics have argued that parapsychology lacks.[24][28]

Ganzfeld experiment 28

CriticismThere are several common criticisms of some or all of the ganzfeld experiments:Isolation — Richard Wiseman and others argue that not all of the studies used soundproof rooms, so it is possiblethat when videos were playing, the experimenter (or even the receiver) could have heard it, and later giveninvoluntary cues to the receiver during the selection process.[29] However, Dean Radin argues that ganzfeld studiesthat 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 choosethe first selection they are shown. If the order in which they are shown the selections is randomized each time, thisbias will be averaged out. The randomization procedures used in the experiment have been criticized for notrandomizing satisfactorily.[30]

The psi assumption — The assumption that any statistical deviation from chance is evidence for telepathy is highlycontroversial. Strictly speaking, a deviation from chance is only evidence that either this was a rare, statisticallyunlikely occurrence that happened by chance, or something was causing a deviation from chance. Flaws in theexperimental design are a common cause of this, and so the assumption that it must be telepathy is fallacious.[31]

ControversyIn 1979, Susan Blackmore visited the laboratories of Carl Sargent in Cambridge. She noticed a number ofirregularities 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.1.1. Sargent did the randomization when he should not have.2.2. A 'B' went missing from the drawer during the session, instead of afterwards.3.3. Sargent came into the judging and 'pushed' the subject towards 'B'.4.4. 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 remainedunpublished 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 conclusionsbased on those observations were wrong and prejudiced. His co-workers also responded, saying that any deviationfrom protocol was the result of “random errors” rather than any concerted attempt at fraud.[34] Carl Sargent stoppedworking in parapsychology after this and did not respond "in a timely fashion" when the Council of theParapsychological Association asked for his data and so his membership in that organization was allowed tolapse.[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][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

Ganzfeld experiment 29

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". InProceedings 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 ofParapsychology 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 autoganzfeldexperiments" (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). . Retrieved2006-06-23.

[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.

Ganzfeld experiment 30

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 GeniusThe Genetic Studies of Genius, today known as the Terman Study of the Gifted,[1] is a still-running longitudinalstudy begun in 1921 to examine the development and characteristics of gifted children into adulthood. The study wasstarted by Lewis Terman at Stanford University and is now the oldest and longest running longitudinal study in theworld.[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. Arelated 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]

OriginTerman had previously performed studies in intelligence, including his doctorate dissertation.[11] In 1916, he adaptedAlfred Binet's intelligence test for the United States and expanded its range. The result was the Stanford-BinetIntelligence Scales, which are still in use today (in an updated form). After his service in developing the Army Alphaduring 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 ofCalifornia for gifted children. Terman initially hoped to find the 1,000 most intelligent children,[12] but eventuallyfound 1,444.[13] However, Terman gradually added subjects to the study through 1928 until there were 1,528 (856males and 672 females).[14] Not all subjects were discovered with the Stanford-Binet. Some were selected for thestudy with the National Intelligence Tests and the Army Alpha. The study subjects were born between 1900 and1925, all lived in California, were about 90% white, and the majority came from upper- or middle-class families.[15]

Genetic Studies of Genius 31

Early findingsTerman's goal was to disprove the then-current belief that gifted children were sickly, socially inept, and notwell-rounded. Therefore, the first volume of the study reported data on the children's family,[16] educationalprogress,[17] special abilities,[18] interests,[19] play,[20] and personality.[21] He also examined the children's racial andethnic heritage.[22] Terman was a proponent of eugenics, although not as radical as many of his contemporary socialDarwinists, 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 thannormal 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 1923-1924found that the children had maintained their high IQs and were still an overall blessed group.

Follow-upsTerman planned later follow-ups, and in his lifetime data would be collected in 1928, 1936, 1940, 1945, 1950, and1955. At his death, the study was directed by Melita Oden, who collected additional data in 1960. Robert RichardsonSears later took charge of the study and collected data in 1972, 1977, 1982, and 1986.[24] Moreover, many studyparticipants 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 otherdocuments related to the study participants.[26] The later follow-ups asked questions about war service, collegeeducation, marital status and happiness, work, retirement, raising children, and other lifetime events andconcerns.[27]

Some of Terman's subjects reached great eminence in their fields. Among the most notable were head I Love Lucywriter Jess Oppenheimer,[28] American Psychological Association president and esteemed educational psychologistLee Cronbach,[29] Ancel Keys,[30] and even Robert Sears himself.[28] Over fifty men became college and universityfaculty members.[31] However, the majority of study participants' lives were more mundane. By the 4th volume ofGenetic Studies of Genius, Terman had noted that as adults, his subjects pursued common occupations "as humbleas those of policeman, seaman, typist and filing clerk"[32] and concluded:

“At any rate, we have seen that intellect and achievement are far from perfectly correlated[33]”CriticismThe study has been criticized for not having a generalizable sample.[34] Moreover, Terman meddled in his subject'slives, giving them letters of recommendation for jobs and college and pulling strings at Stanford to help them getadmitted.[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 Sorokincriticized the research, showing that Terman's selected group of children with high IQs did about as well as a randomgroup 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 ofthe 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 mostof their lives.[37] Despite these shortcomings, the data from the sample is often used for studies because there is noother group of people who have been followed for so long.

Genetic Studies of Genius 32

TodayOf course, as time has passed, the sample has dwindled. As of 2003, there were over 200 members of the sample stillalive.[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][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][12] Terman, 1930, p. 19.[13][13] Terman, 1930, p. 39[14] Holahan & Sears, 1995, p. 12[15] Holahan & Sears, 1995, p. 11-14[16][16] Terman, 1926, p. 135-252[17][17] Terman, 1926, p. 253-306[18][18] Terman, 1926, p. 307-362[19][19] Terman, 1926, p. 363-384, 441-484[20][20] Terman, 1926, p. 385-440[21][21] Terman, 1926, p. 485-556[22][22] Terman, 1926, p. 55-112[23][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][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][30] Shurkin, 1992[31][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.

Hofling hospital experiment 33

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

ProcedureA 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 inthe drug cabinet, but the "drug" was not on the approved list. It was clearly labelled that 10 mg was the maximumdaily dose.The experimental protocol was explained to a group of nurses and nursing students, who were asked to predict howmany nurses would give the drug to the patient. Of the twelve nurses, ten said they would not do it. All twenty-onenursing 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 byan experimenter with the alias of Dr. Smith who said that he would be around to write up the paperwork as soon ashe 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 wereinstructed to administer was twice that of the recommended safe daily dosage. 2.) Hospital protocol stated that nursesshould only take instructions from doctors known to them, therefore they should definitely not have followedinstructions given by an unknown doctor over the phone. 3.) The drug was not on their list of drugs to beadministered that day and the required paperwork to be filled before drug administration was not completed.

FindingsHofling found that 21 out of the 22 nurses would have given the patient an overdose of medicine. None of theinvestigators, and only one experienced nurse who examined the protocol in advance, correctly guessed theexperimental results. He also found that all 22 nurses whom he had given the questionnaire to had said they wouldnot obey the orders of the doctor, and that 10 out of the 22 nurses had done this before, with a different drug.

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

Hofling hospital experiment 34

Books• Basic Psychiatric Concepts in Nursing (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

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 TestThe Implicit Association Test (IAT) is a measure within social psychology designed to detect the strength of aperson's automatic association between mental representations of objects (concepts) in memory. The IAT wasintroduced in the scientific literature in 1998 by Anthony Greenwald, Debbie McGee, and Jordan Schwartz.[1] TheIAT is now widely used in social psychology research and is used to some extent in clinical, cognitive, anddevelopmental 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 theliterature.

History

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

Implicit Association Test 35

Application and useA 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) areinterpreted 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 ofpast experience that mediate favorable or unfavorable feeling, thought, or action toward social objects."[4] Inresearch, the IAT has been used to develop theories to understand implicit cognition (i.e. cognitive processes ofwhich 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, researchersbelieve that IAT scores may reflect attitudes which people are unwilling to reveal publicly.[1] The IAT may allowresearchers to get around the difficult problem of social desirability bias and for that reason it has been usedextensively to assess people's attitudes towards commonly stigmatized groups.[5]

IAT ProcedureTask 1 (practice):

Black White

AaliyahPress E to classify as

Blackor I to classify as White

Task 2 (practice):

Pleasant Unpleasant

SufferingPress E to classify as

Pleasantor I to classify as Unpleasant

Tasks 3 and 4 (data collection):

Black/ White/

Pleasant Unpleasant

HappinessPress E to classify as Black or

Pleasantor I to classify as White or Unpleasant

Task 5 (practice):

Implicit Association Test 36

White Black

EminemPress E to classify as

Whiteor I to classify as Black

Tasks 6 and 7 (data collection):

White/ Black/

Pleasant Unpleasant

ShanicePress E to classify as White or

Pleasantor I to classify as Black or Unpleasant

Example of a typical IAT procedureA typical IAT procedure involves a series of seven tasks.[6] In the first task, an individual is asked to categorizestimuli 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 middleof 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 theappropriate category by pressing the appropriate left-hand or right-hand key. On the second task, the person wouldcomplete a similar sorting procedure with an attribute of some kind. For example, the word "Pleasant" might nowappear in the top left-hand corner of the screen and the word "Unpleasant" in the top right-hand corner. In the middleof the screen would appear a word that is either pleasant or unpleasant. Once again, the person would be asked tosort each word as being either pleasant or unpleasant by pressing the appropriate key. On the third task, individualsare asked to complete a combined task that includes both the categories and attributes from the first two tasks. In thisexample, 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 screenconsisting of either a name or word. They would be asked to press the left-hand key if the name or word belongs tothe "Black/Pleasant" category or the right-hand key if it belongs to the "White/Unpleasant" category. The fourth taskis 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 bereversed. For example, "Black" would now appear in the top right-hand corner of the screen and "White" in the topleft-hand corner. The sixth task would be a repeat of the third, except that the objects and subjects of study would bein opposite pairings from previous trials. In this case, "Black/Unpleasant" would now appear in the top right-handcorner and "White/Pleasant" would now appear in the top left-hand corner. The seventh task is a repeat of the sixthtask but with more repetitions of the names, words, or images. If the categories under study (e.g. Black or White) aredifferently associated with the presented attributes (e.g. Pleasant/Unpleasant), you would expect that the pairing thata participant associates with or believes would be considerably easier for the participant.[1] In this example aparticipant may perform better when White and Pleasant are paired together than when Black and Pleasant arepaired.Variations of the IAT include the Go/No-go Association Test (GNAT),[7] the Brief-IAT [8] and the Single-CategoryIAT.[9] An idiographic approach using the IAT and the SC-IAT for measuring implicit anxiety showed thatpersonalized stimulus selection did not affect the outcome, reliabilities and correlations to outside criteria.[10]

Implicit Association Test 37

Types of IATs

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

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

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

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

Child IATThe Child IAT (Ch-IAT)[14] allows for children as young as four years of age to take the IAT. Rather than words andpictures, the Ch-IAT uses sound and pictures. For example, positive and negative valence are indicated with smilingand 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 Whiteadults have comparable implicit attitudes on the Race IAT.[14]

Theoretical InterpretationThe 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

Implicit Association Test 38

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

IAT and Balanced Identity Theory and Design

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

The Balanced-Congruity PrincipleWhen two unlinked or weakly linked nodes are linked to the same third node, the association between these twoshould strengthen. This is the principle of balance-congruity. The nodes in the principle of balance-congruity areequivalent 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’stheory, also represents a balanced system where the product of the direction of all associations within the system ispositive. [16]

Balanced Identity Research DesignIn 2002, Dr. Anthony Greenwald and his colleagues introduced the balance identity design as a method to testcorrelational predictions of Heider’s balance theory. The balanced identity design incorporated Heider’s theory, thebalanced-congruity principle, and the assumption of centrality of self. The assumption of centrality of self is that inan associative knowledge structure, the self’s centrality can be represented by its being associated with many otherconcepts that are themselves highly connected in the structure. The concepts in a typical balanced identity design arethe self, a social group/object, and either a valence attribute or nonvalence attribute. There are thus five importantassociations possible in a typical balanced identity design that connect these three categories of concepts. An attitudeis the association of a social group/object with a valence attribute; a stereotype is the association of a social groupwith one or more nonvalence attribute(s); self-esteem is the association of the self with a valence attribute; aself-concept is the association of the self with one or more nonvalence attribute(s); and the last important associationis between the self and a social group/object, which is called an identity. However, in a typical balanced identitydesign, 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 todetermine the set of concepts they want to investigate, and each one of the associations within the system that theresearchers created will then be tested and analyzed statistically with both implicit and explicit measures. [16]

Typical Results of Balanced Identity Research Design with Implicit MeasuresA 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”

Implicit Association Test 39

association is usually negative, the “male—being good at math” association is usually positive, and the “me—beinggood at math” association is usually negative. As it’s shown, for both the male and female subjects, their groupidentities are balanced. [16]

Comparison to Findings with Explicit ReportsSelf-reporting is also usually used in a balanced identity design. Although self-reports don’t necessarily reflect thepredicted consistency patterns from Heider’s theory, it is often used to compare with the results from the ImplicitAssociation Test (IAT). Any discrepancies between the self-reports and the IAT results on the same association in abalanced 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-reportingusually shows a weaker positive association or even a weaker negative association of “male” and “being good atmath.” Also, whereas the IAT typically shows a stronger negative association of “me” and “being good at math” forthe same female subjects, the self-reporting usually shows a weaker negative or even a weaker positive associationof “me” and “being good at math.” In this case, the female group is believed to be experiencing a conflict. Thecommon explanation for a group experiencing a conflict is that in an effort to change a stereotypical view that hasbeen around in the society for a really long time, even though people who belong to a certain social group believethat they are able to reject this stereotype (shown in explicit measures), the exact stereotypical thought is still goingto remain in the back of their heads (shown in implicit measures), maybe not as much as those who actually believein that thought. So maybe with time, as a stereotype gradually fades baway, that conflict will fade away as well. [16]

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

Criticism and controversyThe IAT has engendered some controversy in both the scientific literature[17] and in the public sphere (e.g., in theWall Street Journal.)[18] For example, it has been interpreted as assessing familiarity,[19] perceptual salienceasymmetries,[20] or mere cultural knowledge irrespective of personal endorsement of that knowledge.[21] A morerecent critique argued that there is a lack of empirical research justifying the diagnostic statements that are given tothe lay public.[22] For instance, feedback may report that someone has a [slight/moderate/strong] automaticpreference for [European Americans/African Americans]. Proponents of the IAT have responded to thesecharges,[23] but the debate continues. According to The New York Times, "there isn’t even that much consistency inthe same person’s scores if the test is taken again".[24] In addition, researchers have recently claimed that results ofthe IAT might be biased by the participant's lacking cognitive capability to adjust to switching categories, thusbiasing 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]

Implicit Association Test 40

Some of these issues have been settled in the research literature, but others continue to inspire debate amongresearchers and lay people alike.

Validity researchSince its introduction into the scientific literature in 1998, a great deal of research has been conducted in order toexamine 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 theIAT 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 validityof 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 measurestend 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] mentalhealth (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., interviewingMuslim-Arab versus Swedish job applicants),[32] and education outcomes (e.g., gender-science stereotypes predictgender 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 thepredictors of risk-taking behaviour in general aviation, attitudes towards risky flight behaviour as measured throughan IAT have shown to be a more accurate forecast of risky flight behaviour than traditional explicit attitude orpersonality scales.[34] The IAT has also been used in clinical psychology research to test the hypothesis that implicitassociations 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 IATproponents claim that faster response times when pairing concepts indicate stronger associations, critics claim thatfaster response times indicate that concepts are similar in salience (and slower response times indicate that conceptsdiffer in salience).[20] There is some support for this claim. For example, in an old-young IAT, old faces would bemore salient than young faces. As a result, researchers created an old-young IAT that involved pairing young and oldfaces with neutral words (non-salient attribute) and non-words (salient attribute). Response times were faster whenold 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 thisdoes not preclude interpreting the IAT as a measure of associations.[36]

Implicit Association Test 41

Culture versus person

Another criticism of the IAT is that it may measure associations that are picked up from cultural knowledge ratherthan associations actually residing within a person.[21] The counter-argument is that such associations may indeedarise 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 standardvalence IAT and the personalized IAT is that rather than using pleasant and unpleasant words as category labels, ituses "I like" and "I don't like" as category labels. Additionally, the Personalized IAT does not provide error feedbackfor an incorrect response as in the standard IAT. This form of the IAT is more strongly related to explicit self-reportmeasures of bias.Proponents of the standard IAT argue that the Personalized IAT increases the likelihood that those taking it willevaluate the concept rather than classify it.[39] This would increase its relationship with explicit measures withoutnecessarily removing the effect of cultural knowledge. In fact, some researchers have examined the relationshipbetween perceptions of general American attitudes and Personalized IAT scores and have concluded that therelationship between the IAT and cultural knowledge is not decreased by personalizing it. However, it is important tonote 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 tofake their responses on the IAT have demonstrated difficulty in doing so. For example, participants who were askedto present a positive impression of themselves were able to do so on a self-report measure of anxiety but not an IATmeasuring anxiety.[40] Nonetheless, faking is possible,[41] and recent research indicates that the most effectivemethod of faking the IAT is to intentionally slow down responses for pairings that should be relatively easy. Mostsubjects, however, do not discover this strategy on their own, so faking is relatively rare. An algorithm developed toestimate 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 difficultresponse pairings in an autobiographical implicit association test that aims to test the veracity of autobiographicalstatement. Specifically, participants who were instructed to speed up their responses to fake the test were able to doso. The effect was larger when participants were trained in speeding up. Most importantly, guilty participants whospeed 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 newchanllenges to the IATs.[42]

Familiarity

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

Implicit Association Test 42

Order

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

Cognitive fluency and age

The IAT is influenced by individual differences in average IAT response times such that those with slower overallresponse 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 beenintroduced.[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 issomewhat ameliorated with the improved scoring algorithm.[45] An additional safeguard to control for IATexperience is to include a different type of IAT as a comparison. This allows researchers to evaluate the degree ofmagnitude decrease when administering subsequent IATs.

Reliability

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

In popular cultureAfter 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 theUniversity of Virginia), co-founded Project Implicit,[48] a virtual laboratory and educational outreach organizationthat 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 leaderssuch as Nelson Mandela. The IAT was also discussed in a 2006 episode of the Oprah Winfrey Show[50].

Implicit Association Test 43

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 IndividualDifferences 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 ofPersonality 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 theelephant 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][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). . Retrieved2008-10-11.

[24] Tierney, John (November 17, 2008). "In Bias Test, Shades of Gray" (http:/ / www. nytimes. com/ 2008/ 11/ 18/ science/ 18tier. html). TheNew 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 SuicidalMind: 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 ImplicitAssociation Test: III. Meta-analysis of Predictive Validity (http:/ / faculty. washington. edu/ agg/ pdf/ IAT. Meta-analysis. 16Sep05. pdf). .Retrieved 2008-10-11.

Implicit Association Test 44

[29] Arcuri, L., Castelli, L., Galdi, S., Zogmaister, C., & Amadori, A. (2008). Predicting the vote: Implicit attitudes as predictors of the futurebehavior 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 biasin physicians and its prediction of thrombolysis decisions for Black and White patients. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 22, 1231–1238.

[32][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 sexdifferences 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 anxietydisorders. 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. PsychologicalInquiry, 15, 279-289.

[38] Olson, M. A., & Fazio, R. H. (2006). Reducing automatically-activated racial prejudice through implicit evaluative conditioning. Personalityand 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 andSocial Psychology 83: 1441–1455

[41][41] Kim, D. Y. (2003). Voluntary controllability of the Implicit Association Test (IAT). Social Psychology Quarterly, 66, 83-96.[42][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)

Implicit Association Test 45

• 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 measuresAn independent measures design is a type of method used during a psychology experiment that involves two ormore separate groups, each containing different individuals, where each participant only takes part in each conditiononce.See also Repeated measures design.

Advantages of independent measures designOne 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 participantsand one test for each condition of the independent variable. This saves time and is a lot quicker than using a repeatedmeasures design.

Disadvantages of independent measures designOne of the main disadvantages of using independent measures design is the potential for error resulting from theindividual differences of the participants, because they do not match those in other groups, which would affect theresults and therefore the internal validity (and reliability). The participants no longer become a control variablebecause you are using two different groups of people. It could be said that the results turned out the way they didbecause 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 individualdifference that the experimenter is not aware of. So group A might perform better on average, not due to theindependent variable being changed but the individual differences in participants.

Le Jeu de la Mort 46

Le Jeu de la MortLe Jeu de la Mort (The Game of Death) is a French/Swiss television documentary that was broadcast by the Frenchpublic television channel France 2. The documentary was presented as a social commentary on the effects ofhumiliation in reality television and obeying orders, and its broadcast was followed by a studio discussion on theprogramme.[1]

The documentary focused on a conduction of the Milgram experiment, but with the additional factor of thepopularity and influence of reality television on the general public. The experiment was performed under the guise ofa 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 asplayers 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]

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 experimentationPsychology has adapted the principles of positivist research to develop a wide range of laboratory-based approachesto research. Typically, such research seeks to test a hypothesis in controlled circumstances. In other words, allindependent variables (causes) are controlled apart from a test variable to investigate the effect on a dependentvariable (effect).In the simplest model, two 'treatments' (independent variables) are compared: for example, subjects are exposed totwo different sound stimuli such as tones of different frequencies, to compare the effects on heart rate (dependentvariable). The heart rates observed are then analysed using inferential statistics such as the 't-test' which can evaluatewhether 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. Advantagesare 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'.

Learned helplessness 47

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

Foundation of research and theory

Seligman and MaierThe American psychologist Martin Seligman's foundational experiments and theory of learned helplessness began atthe University of Pennsylvania in 1967, as an extension of his interest in depression. Quite by accident, Seligmanand 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 copingmechanism the animal uses is to be stoical and put up with the discomfort, not expending energy getting worked upabout the adverse stimulus.

Detail

In Part 1 of Seligman and Steve Maier's experiment, three groups of dogs were placed in harnesses. Group 1 dogswere simply put in the harnesses for a period of time and later released. Groups 2 and 3 consisted of "yoked pairs." Adog in Group 2 would be intentionally subjected to pain by being given electric shocks, which the dog could end bypressing a lever. A Group 3 dog was wired in series with a Group 2 dog, receiving shocks of identical intensity andduration, 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 behelpless, 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, inwhich 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 andwhined. 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 learnedsome behavior in Part 1 of the experiment, while they were struggling in the harnesses against the "inescapableshocks," that somehow interfered with what would have been their normal, successful behavior of escaping from theshocks in Part 2. The Group 3 dogs were immobilized with a paralyzing drug (Curare), and underwent a proceduresimilar to that in Part 1 of the Seligman and Maier experiment. A similar Part 2 in the shuttle-box was alsoundertaken in this experiment, and the Group 3 dogs exhibited the same "helpless" response.

Learned helplessness 48

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

Later experimentsOther experiments were performed with different animals with similar results. In all cases, the strongest predictor ofa depressive response was lack of control over the aversive stimulus. One such later experiment, presented byWatson & Ramey (1969), consisted of two groups of human babies. One group was placed into a crib with a sensorypillow, designed so that the movement of the baby's head could control the rotation of a mobile. The other group hadno control over the movement of the mobile and could only enjoy looking at it. Later, both groups of babies weretested in cribs that allowed the babies to control the mobile. Although all the babies now had the power to control themobile, 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. Peoplewho 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 animalstudy[7] found that animals with control over stress exhibited changes in the excitability of specific neurons withinthe prefrontal cortex, and modeled this phenomenon in a conductance-based neural simulation. Animals that lackedcontrol failed to exhibit an increase in excitability and showed signs consistent with learned helplessness and socialanxiety.

Attributional reformulationLater research discovered that the original theory of learned helplessness failed to account for people's varyingreactions to situations that can cause learned helplessness.[8] Learned helplessness sometimes remains specific to onesituation,[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 toadverse events.[10] Although a group of people may experience the same or similar negative events, how each personprivately interprets or explains the event will affect the likelihood of acquiring learned helplessness and subsequentdepression.[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 learnedhelplessness and depression.[12] Cognitive behavioral therapy, heavily endorsed by Seligman, can often help peopleto 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 explanationto an unpleasant event. Attribution theory includes the dimensions of globality/specificity, stability/instability, andinternality/externality.[13] A global attribution occurs when the individual believes that the cause of negative eventsis consistent across different contexts. A specific attribution occurs when the individual believes that the cause of anegative event is unique to a particular situation. A stable attribution occurs when the individual believes the causeto be consistent across time. Unstable attribution occurs when the individual thinks that the cause is specific to onepoint in time. An external attribution assigns causality to situational or external factors, while an internal attributionassigns causality to factors within the person.[11]

Learned helplessness 49

Differences between humans and other animalsThere are several aspects of human helplessness that have no counterpart among animals. One of the most intriguingaspects is "vicarious learning (or modelling)": that people can learn to be helpless through observing another personencountering uncontrollable events.[14]

Apart from the shared depression symptoms between human and other animals such as passivity, introjectedhostility, weight loss, appetite loss, social and sexual deficits, some of the diagnostic symptoms of learnedhelplessness—including depressed mood, feelings of worthlessness, and suicidal ideation—can be found andobserved in human beings but not necessarily in other animals.[12] In non-human animal models, control over stressconveys resilience to future uncontrolled stressors and induces changes in the function of specific neurons within theprefrontal cortex. [15]

Neurobiological PerspectiveResearch has shown that increased 5-HT (serotonin) activity in the dorsal raphe nucleus plays a critical role inlearned helplessness, (commonly referred to as conditioned defeat). Other key brain regions that are involved withthe expression of helpless behavior include the basolateral amygdala, central nucleus of the amygdala and bednucleus of the stria terminalis. [16]

Additional sources have concluded that activity in medial prefrontal cortex, dorsal hippocampus, septum andhypothalamus were observed during states of helplessness.In the article,"Exercise, Learned Helplessness, and the Stress-Resistant Brain", by Benjamin N. Greenwood andMonika Fleshner, they mention how exercise and neurobiology relate in the facet that it *can* preventanxiety-related disorders such as depression. Greenwood and Fleshner state, " The underlying neurobiologicalmechanisms of this effect, however, remain unknown. Identifying the mechanisms by which exercise preventslearned helplessness could shed light on the complex neurobiology of depression and anxiety and potentially lead tonovel 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 oremotions. In the abstract, the authors state the following focuses: 1) how exercise can alter the behavioralconsequences of stress and how "learned helplessness" affects animals 2) the role that Serotonin or 5-HT, aneurotransmitter in the brain that controls mood, plays and circuitry of the brain 3) Neural plasticity and brain-connection adaptions taking place while exercising. [18]

This article also mentions "laboratory rodents" as prime subjects for wheel running and how the specific animaldeals with anxiety and depression. " Treadmill training increases muscle enzymatic capacity" [19] Enzymaticmeaning of or pertaining to an enzyme" [20]. What this wheel running does is relieve stress, but also time may not beas important as how specific or intense the training was. It was proven that wheel running did prevent anxiety andstress-related diseases and/or consequences in Greenwood and Fleshner's study. Again, the focus was to determine ifor if not wheel running can prevent the onset of depression and "anxiety- like behaviors" in the laboratory rodents.

Learned helplessness 50

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

DepressionYoung adults and middle-aged parents with a pessimistic explanatory style are often more likely to suffer fromdepression.[25] People with a pessimistic explanatory style tend to be poor at problem-solving and cognitiverestructuring, and also tend to demonstrate poor job satisfaction and interpersonal relationships in theworkplace.[23][26] Those with a pessimistic explanatory style also tend to have weakened immune systems, and notonly 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 iscaused by prejudice (i.e., "deprejudice").[28] Someone facing inescapable prejudice (e.g., abuse) may develop learnedhelplessness and depression as a result. "Helplessness born in the face of inescapable prejudice matches thehelplessness born in the face of inescapable shocks."[29]

MotivationLearned helplessness can also be a motivational problem. Individuals who have failed at tasks in the past concludeerroneously that they are incapable of improving their performance.[30] This might set children behind in academicsubjects 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 herfor the inconveniences experienced. In turn, the student will give up trying to gain respect or advancement throughacademic performance.[31]

Social impactChild abuse by neglect can be a manifestation of learned helplessness: when parents believe they are incapable ofstopping 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 extremelyshy, passive, anxious and depressed may learn helplessness to offer stable explanations for unpleasant socialexperiences. However, Gotlib and Beatty (1985) found that people who cite helplessness in social settings may beviewed 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, andthe 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

Learned helplessness 51

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

ExtensionsCognitive scientist and usability engineer Donald Norman used learned helplessness to explain why people blamethemselves 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 learnedhelplessness can be extended beyond psychology into the realm of social action. When a culture or political identityfails 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 hesaid was a three-hour talk on helping U.S. soldiers to resist torture, based on his understanding of learnedhelplessness, 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.. AdvancedPersonality. 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 AbnormalPsychology 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 Review91: 347–74.

[11] Abramson, L. Y.; Seligman, M. E. P.; Teasdale, J. D. (1978). "Learned helplessness in humans: Critique and reformulation". Journal ofAbnormal 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: OxfordUniversity Press. ISBN 0-19-504467-3.

[13][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][18] [pdf file],additional text.[19][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.

Learned helplessness 52

[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 stylestill 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 withattributional 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 linksthem?". 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 focused on how to help U.S. soldiers resisttorture—not on how to breakdown resistance in detainees. ... Mitchell has denied that these theories guided his and the CIA's use"

[40][40] Greenwood, Benjamin. "Exercise, Learned Helplessness, and the Stress-Resistant Brain". Department of Integrative Physiology and Centerfor 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 andLearning Materials On-line"

• Lacking Control Increases Illusory Pattern Perception, Jennifer A. Whitson / Adam D. Galinsky, Science, 3October 2008: Vol. 322. no. 5898, pp. 115–17 (http:/ / www. sciencemag. org/ cgi/ content/ abstract/ sci;322/5898/ 115),

Lexical decision task 53

Lexical decision taskThe lexical decision task (LDT) is a procedure used in many psychology and psycholinguistics experiments. Thebasic 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 wascoined by David E. Meyer and Roger W. Schvaneveldt, who brought the task to prominence in a series of studies onthe 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 taskSubjects 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 timetaken to decide that it belongs to a prespecified semantic category.[2] When semantic categories are small and wordsare 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 thewords (or the pseudowords) differ. A very common effect is that of frequency: words that are more frequent arerecognized 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 subjectis 'primed' with a certain stimulus before the actual lexical decision task has to be performed. In this way, it has beenshown 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 retrievaloperations" 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.

Little Albert experiment 54

Little Albert experiment

Illustration based on film documentation from the Little Albert Experiment

The Little Albert experiment was a casestudy showing empirical evidence ofclassical conditioning in humans. This studywas also an example of stimulusgeneralization. It was conducted in 1920 byJohn B. Watson along with his assistantRosalie Rayner. The study was done atJohns Hopkins University.

John B. Watson, after observing children inthe field, was interested in finding supportfor his notion that the reaction of children,whenever they heard loud noises, wasprompted by fear. Furthermore, he reasonedthat this fear was innate or due to anunconditioned response. He felt thatfollowing the principles of classicalconditioning, he could condition a child to fear another distinctive stimulus which normally would not be feared by achild.

MethodologyJohn B. Watson and his partner, Rayner, chose Albert from a hospital for this study at the age of almost ninemonths.[1] Albert's mother was a wet nurse at the Harriet Lane Home for Invalid Children. "Albert was the son of anemployee of the Phipps Clinic at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, where Watson and Rayner were conductingtheir experiments."[2]

As the preliminary to the experiment, Little Albert was given a battery of baseline emotional tests: the infant wasexposed, briefly and for the first time, to a white rabbit, a rat, a dog, a monkey, masks with and without hair, cottonwool, burning newspapers, etc. During the baseline, Little Albert showed no fear toward any of these items. Albertwas then placed on a mattress on a table in the middle of a room. A white laboratory rat was placed near Albert andhe 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 itroamed around him. In later trials, Watson and Rayner made a loud sound behind Albert's back by striking asuspended steel bar with a hammer when the baby touched the rat. Little Albert responded to the noise by crying andshowing 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 tomove away. Apparently, the baby boy had associated the white rat (original neutral stimulus, now conditionedstimulus) with the loud noise (unconditioned stimulus) and was producing the fearful or emotional response ofcrying (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.

Little Albert experiment 55

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

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

Finding Little AlbertIn 2009, Appalachian State University psychologist Hall P. Beck and two colleagues published an article in whichthey claimed to have discovered the true identity "Albert B." [3] After reviewing Watson's correspondence andpublications as well as research in public documents (such as the 1920 United States Census and state birth and deathrecords), Beck argued that "Albert B." was a pseudonym for Douglas Merritte, the son of Arvilla Merritte, then anunmarried woman who appears to have been a wet nurse at the Harriet Lane Home.[3] She gave birth to Douglas onMarch 9, 1919 at the Johns Hopkins Hospital. She was employed at the Harriet Lane Home and a resident of theJohns Hopkins campus at the time of Watson's experiment. Watson obtained his baseline assessment of Little Alberton or around December 5, 1919 when Douglas Merritte was 8 months 26 days old",[3] the same age reported inWatson's article (Watson & Rayner, 1920). No descriptive data beyond a probable photograph were uncovered forDouglas and, hence, nothing is known about the enduring effects of Watson's experiment on the child. The youngboy died on May 10, 1925 of hydrocephalus, which he was believed to have developed in 1922. A 2012 article, byanother team also including Beck, revised this assertion, showing instead that Merritte had hydrocephalus frombirth.[4] The article also included assessments of the boy in the "Albert B." film by a clinical psychologist and apediatric neurologist (Fridlund and Goldie, respectively), indicating that his responses were indicative of aneurologically 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 isburied in the cemetery of the Locust Grove Church of the Brethren in Mount Airy, Maryland.

CritiqueA 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 ratphobia 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 butuninterpretable" results.

It was also found that most textbooks "suffer from inaccuracies of various degrees" while referring to Watson andRayner'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 werebeing 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]

Little Albert experiment 56

EthicsAlbert was only eight months old at the time of the first test. Because of his young age, the experiment today wouldbe considered unethical by the American Psychological Association's ethic code (see references). Since thisexperiment, and others that pushed the boundaries of experimental ethics, the APA has banned studies consideredunethical.By present-day standards, Watson's experiment was unethical for numerous reasons. It is now measured immoral toevoke reactions of fear in humans under laboratory circumstances, except if the participant has given an informedapproval to being purposely horrified as part of the experiment. Experiments should not cause the human participantsto suffer unnecessary distress or to be in any way physically harmed. The welfare of the human participants mustalways be the paramount consideration in any form of research, and this is especially true with specially protectedgroups 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 wouldlikely have been desensitized by his natural environments later in life. However, today's ethical guidelines would notpermit 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 questionableethics. 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 cultureLittle Albert was featured in a 1919 film by Rayner and Watson, which is strange, considering that the experimentthat 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 withnature, 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 ofplastic Imipolex G. Decades later, his sexual behavior in London is studied in an effort to track V-2 rocketexplosions because the plastic is used in the rocket.

Notes[1] Watson & Rayner, 1920, p. 1[2][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.

Little Albert experiment 57

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 ClockThe Mackworth Clock is an experimental device used in the field of experimental psychology to study the effectsof long term vigilance on the detection of signals. It was originally created by Norman Mackworth as anexperimental 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 jumpslike the second hand of an analog clock, approximately every second. At infrequent and irregular intervals, the handmakes a double jump, e.g. 12 times every 30 seconds. The task is to detect when the double jumps occur by pressinga button. Typically, Mackworth's participants would do this task for two hours.[2] The Mackworth Clock was used toestablish 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 invigilance research in various forms, including computer-displayed versions.[3]

References[1][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

Media violence research 58

Media violence researchResearch into the media and violence examines whether links between consuming media violence and subsequentaggressive and violent behavior exists. Although some social scientists support this link,[1] methodological andtheoretical problems with the existing literature limit interpretation of findings in this area. There is concern amongsome 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 wasconcerned 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 othershave attracted speculation that consumers of such media may become more aggressive, rebellious or immoral. Thishas led some scholars to conclude statements made by some researchers merely fit into a cycle of media-based moralpanics (e.g. Gauntlett, 1995; Trend, 2007; Kutner & Olson, 2008). The advent of television prompted research intothe effects of this new medium in the 1960s. Much of this research has been guided by social learning theorydeveloped by Albert Bandura. Social learning theory suggests that one way in which human beings learn is by theprocess of modeling.

Media effects theories

Social Learning TheoryMedia effects theories in modern times originated with Bandura's social learning theory, which suggests that childrenmay learn aggression from viewing others.[3] Modeling of behavior was observed in Bandura's Bobo Dollexperiments. Bandura showed children a video of a model beating up a Bobo doll and then put the children in a roomwith 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. Thishas 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 togeneralize 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. Inother 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 thebo-bo doll by himself being physically punished. Specifically the adult was pushed down in the video by theexperimenter and hit with a newspaper while being berated. This actual person-on-person violence actuallydecreased aggressive acts in the children, probably due to vicarious reinforcement. Nonetheless these last resultsindicate that even young children don't automatically imitate aggression, but rather consider the context ofaggression.

Social Cognitive TheorySocial 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

Media violence research 59

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

Catalyst ModelOne alternate theory the Catalyst Model (Ferguson et al., 2008) has been proposed to explain the etiology ofviolence. 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 tothis model, considered too weak an influence. Specific violent acts are "catalyzed" by stressful environmentcircumstances, 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 mostlearning-focused media violence researchers. The Catalyst Model is a newer theory and has not been tested asextensively as other theoretical models.

Moral Panic TheoryA final theory relevant to this area is the moral panic theory. Elucidated largely by David Gauntlett,[5] this theorypostulates that concerns about new media are historical and cyclical. In this view, a society forms a predeterminednegative 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 thandispassionately observe and evaluate the issue. Ultimately the panic dies out after several years or decades, butultimately resurfaces when yet another new medium is introduced.

Criticisms of media violence researchAlthough organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychological Associationhave 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 bymeta-analyses such as Paik and Comstock, 1994) have been conducted in peer-reviewed scientific journals ontelevision, movie, music and video game violence effects. Critics argue that about half find some link between mediaand subsequent aggression (but not violent crime), whereas the other half do not find a link between consumingviolent media and subsequent aggression of any kind.[6]

Criticisms of the media violence link focus on a number of methodological and theoretical problems including (butnot limited to) the following (see Bryce & Kaye, 2011; Freedman, 2002; Olson, 2004; Tedeschi & Quigley, 1996;Pinker, 2002):1.1. 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, yetshown little consideration of the potentially different responses to these games as a result of differences in othergame characteristics (e.g., level of action, frustration, enjoyment).

2. Failure to acknowledge the role of social contexts in which media violence is experienced. Within theoreticalmodels explaining the influence of violent video game exposure on aggressive attitudes and behaviour, noacknowledgement is made towards understanding the influence of social gaming experiences and contexts onthese outcomes. That is, differential outcomes of gaming arise as a result of different social contexts (onlineversus 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 differentcontexts. This is a key limitation of current theory within media violence research

Media violence research 60

3. Failure to employ standardized, reliable and valid measures of aggression and media violence exposure.Although measurement of psychological variables is always tricky at best, it is generally accepted thatmeasurement techniques should be standardized, reliable and valid, as demonstrated empirically. However, somescholars argue that the measurement tools involved are often unstandardized, sloppily employed and fail to reportreliability coefficients. Examples include the "Competitive Reaction Time Test" in which participants believe thatthey are punishing an opponent for losing in a reaction time test by subjecting the opponent to noise blasts orelectric shocks. There is no standardized way of employing this task, raising the possibility that authors maymanipulate the results to support their conclusions. This task may produce dozens of different possible ways tomeasure "aggression", all from a single participant's data. Without a standardized way of employing andmeasuring aggression using this task, there is no way of knowing whether the results reported are a valid measureof aggression, or were selected from among the possible alternatives simply because they produced positivefindings where other alternatives did not. Ferguson and Kilburn, in a paper in Journal of Pediatrics, have foundthat poorly standardized and validated measures of aggression tend to produce higher effects than well validatedaggression measures.

4. Failure to report negative findings. Some scholars contend that many of the articles that purport positive findingsregarding a link between media violence and subsequent aggression, on a closer read, actually have negative orinconclusive results. One example is the experimental portion of Anderson & Dill (2000; with video games)which measures aggression four separate ways (using an unstandardized, unreliable and unvalidated measure ofaggression, the Competitive Reaction Time Test mentioned above) and finds significance for only one of thosemeasures. Had a statistical adjustment known as a Bonferroni correction been properly employed, that fourthfinding also would have been insignificant. This issue of selective reporting differs from the "file drawer" effectin which journals fail to publish articles with negative findings. Rather, this is due to authors finding a "mixedbag" of results and discussing only the supportive findings and ignoring the negative findings within a singlemanuscript. The problem of non-reporting of non-significant findings (the so-called "file cabinet effect") is aproblem 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. Some scholars contend that media violence studies regularly fail toaccount for other variables such as genetics, personality and exposure to family violence that may explain bothwhy 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 personalityare controlled, no predictive relationship between either video games or television violence and youth violenceremain (Ferguson, San Miguel & Hartley, 2009; Ybarra et al., 2008, Figure 2).

6. Failure to adequately define "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 theexternal 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. Whetherresearchers 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-reviewedjournals. However many of these operational definitions of aggression are specifically criticized. Manyexperimental 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) maypretend 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

Media violence research 61

and Comstock note that when aggression toward another person, and particularly actual violent crime isconsidered, the relationship between media violence and these outcomes is near zero. Effects can vary accordingto 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, transienteffects that do not translate into large effects in the real world. Media violence researchers often defend this bystating that many medical studies also produce small effects (although as Block and Crain, 2007, note, theseresearchers may have miscalculated the effect sizes from medical research).

8. Media violence rates are not correlated with violent crime rates. Ultimately the biggest problem for this body ofliterature is that for this theory to be true, media violence (which appears to have been consistently andunfailingly on the rise since the 1950s) should be well correlated with violent crime (which has been cycling upand down throughout human history). By discussing only the data from the 1950s through the 1990s, mediaviolence researchers create the illusion that there is a correlation, when in fact there is not. Large spikes in violentcrime in the United States occurred without associated media violence spikes during the 1880s (when recordswere 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 themid 1990s and have stayed low, during a time when media violence has continued to increase, and saw theaddition of violent video games. Lastly media violence researchers can not explain why many countries withmedia violence rates similar to or equal to the U.S. (such as Norway, Canada, Japan, etc.) have much lowerviolent crime rates. Huesmann & Eron's own cross-national study (which is often cited in support of mediaviolence effects) failed to find a link between television violence and aggressive behavior in most of the countriesincluded 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 world. Many TV programmersargue that their shows just mirror the violence that goes on in the real world. Zev Braun,of CBS, in 1990 arguedin a debate on the Violence Bill that, "We live in a violent society. Art imitates modes of life, not the other wayaround: it would be better for Congress to clean that society than to clean that reflection of society."[7]

Researchers' response to criticisms1. Regarding instruments used to measure aggression, some media researchers argue that better measures are often

not readily available. Also, measuring "violent criminal behavior" in laboratory studies would clearly be unethical(Bushman & Anderson, 2001).

2.2. Regarding the inconclusive nature of some findings, media researchers often contend that it is the critics who aremisinterpreting or selectively reporting studies (Anderson et al., 2003). It may be that both sides of the debate arehighlighting separate findings that are most favorable to their own "cause".

3. Regarding "third" variables, media violence researchers acknowledge that other variables may 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

Media violence research 62

simple as gender proves capable of "mediating" media violence effects.4.4. Regarding aggression, the problem may have less to do with the definition of aggression, but rather how

aggression is measured in studies, and how aggression and violent crime are used interchangeably in the publiceye.

5. Much of the 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 thosefound 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. Thisargument 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 medicaleffect sizes. The interpretation of effect size in both medical and social science remains in its infancy.

6. More recently, media violence experts have acknowledged that societal media consumption and violent crimerates 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 researchersmay need to be more careful not to retreat to an unfalsifiable theory – one that cannot be disproven (Freedman,2002).

7. Researchers argue that the discrepancy of violent acts seen on TV 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 crimesoccurring in the following reality-based TV programs: America’s Most Wanted, Cops, Top Cops, FBI, TheUntold 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, whereasonly 13% of crimes occurring on TV are considered non-violent crimes.[7] However, this discrepancy betweenmedia and real-life crimes may arguably dispute rather than support media effects theories.

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

Relationship between media violence and minor aggressive behaviorsGiven that little evidence links media violence to serious physical aggression, bullying or youth violence,[9] atpresent most of the debate appears to focus on whether media violence may have an impact on more minor forms ofaggressiveness. At present, no consensus has been reached on this issue. For example in 1974 the US SurgeonGeneral testified to congress that "the overwhelming consensus and the unanimous Scientific Advisory Committee’sreport 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 largelyreversed 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 watchednine different videos of violent acts and nine different videos of comedy acts. After, the students were asked howthey felt/their moods. The views felt less sympathetic over the course of the study and were being "desensitized" tothe violence.[12] In the same study the participants were asked if they were involved in any real-life aggression? Theresults showed that there were no apparent extreme acts of violence noted.(Fanti 2009)[13]

Media violence research 63

Evolution of Media Outlets and AdolescentsWhat people may not think of when they hear media violence is the internet. We tend to forget that technology andmeans of communication and is expanding everyday. The internet is a widely used resource, especially foradolescents. They have internet on cell phones or their computer at home and at school that most like is available touse everyday. What people tend to forget is that with the use of the internet can lead to the type of violence that isnot talked about a lot. There is violence to oneself from what one sees about him or herself overmedia/communications sites such as www.facebook.com or www.twitter.com. The aggression does not just includethe result of an adolescent watch a violent act through media but being prone to other means of violence throughelectronic means. This is also known as Electronic Aggression which can be defined as any type of harassment[14] orbullying (teasing, telling lies, making fun of someone, making rude or mean comments, spreading rumors, or makingthreatening 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• Cheryl Olson's web-site [15]

• Free Expression Policy Project [16]

• Website of Brad Bushman [17]

• Info on court cases critical of media violence research [18]

• Website of Christopher J. Ferguson [19]

• Website of Craig Anderson [20]

• Youth Violence: A Report of the Surgeon General [21]

• Entertainment Software Industry's info on video game effects [22]

Footnotes[1] Anderson, C. A.; Berkowitz, L.; Donnerstein, E.; Huesmann, L. R.; Johnson, J. D.; Linz, D.; Malamuth, N. M.; Wartella, E. (2003). "The

influence of media violence on youth". Psychological Science in the Public Interest 4 (3): 81. doi:10.1111/j.1529-1006.2003.pspi_1433.x.[2] Weaver, Erin (2007). "Based on a True Story: The Use of Truth on the Didactic Stage" (http:/ / hdl. handle. net/ 1974/ 1062).

Inquiry@Queen’s (1): 1–5. .[3] 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)[4] name=Ferguson & Dyck, 2012>Ferguson, Christopher (2012). "Paradigm change in aggression research: The time has come to retire the

General Aggression Model" (http:/ / www. tamiu. edu/ ~cferguson/ Paradigm Change. pdf). Aggression and Violence Behavior (17): 220–228..

[5] David Gauntlett (2005), Moving Experiences, second edition: Media Effects and Beyond (http:/ / www. theory. org. uk/ david/ book7. htm),London: John Libbey

[6] Freedman, Jonathan L. (2002). Media violence and its effect on aggression: Assessing the scientific evidence. Toronto: University of TorontoPress. ISBN 978-0-8020-3553-0

[7] Anderson, C. A. & Bushman, B. J. (2001) Media Violence and the American Public: Scientific Facts Versus Media Misinformation.American Psychologist

[8] Beresin, Eugene. violence_on_children_and_adolescents_opportunities_for_clinical_interventions "The Impact of Media Violence onChildren and Adolescents: Opportunities for Clinical Interventions" (http:/ / www. aacap. org/ cs/ root/ developmentor/the_impact_of_media_). American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.violence_on_children_and_adolescents_opportunities_for_clinical_interventions.

[9] "Video Games and Youth Violence: A Prospective Analysis in Adolescents", Christopher J. Ferguson, Journal of Youth and Adolescence[10] American Psychological Society (http:/ / www. psychologicalscience. org/ pdf/ pspi/ pspi43. pdf)[11] Department of Health And Human Services (http:/ / www. surgeongeneral. gov/ library/ youthviolence/ report. html)[12] (http:/ / web. ebscohost. com/ ehost/ pdfviewer/ pdfviewer?sid=ff3fe166-b536-4ac1-b8fe-1f2206068aa2@sessionmgr113& vid=2&

hid=106)[13] Fanti, Kostas (2009). "Desensitization To Media Violence Over A Short Period of Time" (http:/ / web. ebscohost. com/ ehost/ pdfviewer/

pdfviewer?sid=ff3fe166-b536-4ac1-b8fe-1f2206068aa2@sessionmgr113& vid=2& hid=106). Aggressive Behavior 35: 179-187. . Retrieved11/07/12.

Media violence research 64

[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 SocialPsychology, 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. ISBN978-0-19-514995-1

• Bargh, J., Chen, M., & Burrows, L. (1996). " Automaticity of Social Behavior: Direct Effects of Trait Constructand Stereotype Activation on Action (http:/ / www. psych. uiuc. edu/ ~broberts/ Bargh et al. , 1996. pdf)". Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 71(2).

• Bartholow, B. D.; Bushman, B. J.; Sestir, M. A. (2006). "Chronic violent video game exposure anddesensitization to violence: Behavioral and event-related brain potential data". Journal of Experimental SocialPsychology 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."". AmericanPsychologist 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 mediamisinformation (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 GeneralAggression 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 clinicalinterventions. 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. InD. 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 ofApplied Social Psychology 33 (8): 1553. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2003.tb01962.x. "This study examined therelationship between playing violent videogames and sensitivity to aggressive acts."

Media violence research 65

• Elizabeth, J. E., & Morton, N. (2008). Exposure to media violence and young children with and withoutdisabilities: 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". TheJournal 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 ashort 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 andaggression: Causal relationship or byproduct of family violence and intrinsic violence motivation? CriminalJustice and Behavior Available at: http:/ / www. tamiu. edu/ ~cferguson/ CJBGames. pdf

• Ferguson, C. J. San Miguel, C., & Hartley, R. D. (2009). A multivariate analysis of youth violence andaggression: 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. PocketBooks. 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 ofantisocial 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 CauseBehavior? 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. NewYork : 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 onexperiences of playing videogames (http:/ / www. ijis. net/ ijis7_1/ ijis7_1_kaye_and_bryce. pdf). InternationalJournal 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 ofabnormal 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 (ISBN0-670-03151-8)

Media violence research 66

•• 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 onImitation: 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 ViolentFilm, 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 inTheory and Research(3rd ed., pp. 269–286)

• Tedeschi, J. T.; Quigley, B. M. (1996). "Limitations of laboratory paradigms for studying aggression". Aggressionand 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 inunder-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 betweeninternet 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. Retrievedfrom 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

Metallic Metals Act 67

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

The ExperimentAccording 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 allOf those asked, 70% expressed an opinion despite the fact that no such act existed and, therefore, the respondentscould 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]

CriticismThis study may be criticized on a number of points. Reportedly theTide article does not disclose the study's samplesize nor the method by which participants were selected.[3] The study is cited as an example of bias induced byforced choice.[4] The study, and the Act, are nonetheless referred to in textbooks and other works, some of whom arelisted in the references below.An element of hoaxing is common in psychological studies, but questions about the methodology of Gill's study andits publication in a nonscientific venue give rise to the possibility that not only the Act, but the study itself, may havehad 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 68

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

External links• MIDAS Trial website [1]

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

Milgram experiment

The experimenter (E) orders the teacher (T), the subjectof the experiment, to give what the latter believes are

painful electric shocks to a learner (L), who is actuallyan actor and confederate. The subject believes that foreach wrong answer, the learner was receiving actualelectric shocks, though in reality there were no suchpunishments. Being separated from the subject, the

confederate set up a tape recorder integrated with theelectro-shock generator, which played pre-recorded

sounds for each shock level.[1]

The Milgram experiment on obedience to authority figures wasa series of notable social psychology experiments conducted byYale University psychologist Stanley Milgram, which measuredthe willingness of study participants to obey an authority figurewho instructed them to perform acts that conflicted with theirpersonal conscience. Milgram first described his research in 1963in an article published in the Journal of Abnormal and SocialPsychology,[1] and later discussed his findings in greater depth inhis 1974 book, Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View.[2]

The experiments began in July 1961, three months after the start ofthe trial of German Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann inJerusalem. Milgram devised his psychological study to answer thequestion: "Was it that Eichmann and his accomplices in theHolocaust had mutual intent, in at least with regard to the goals ofthe Holocaust?" In other words, "Was there a mutual sense ofmorality among those involved?" Milgram's testing suggested thatit could have been that the millions of accomplices were merelyfollowing orders, despite violating their deepest moral beliefs. Theexperiments have been repeated many times, with consistentresults within societies, but different percentages across theglobe.[3] The experiments were also controversial, and consideredby some scientists to be unethical and physically orpsychologically abusive. Psychologist Diana Baumrind consideredthe experiment, "harmful because it may cause permanentpsychological damage and cause people to be less trusting in thefuture." [4] Such criticism motivated more thorough review boards and committee reviews for working with humansubjects.

Milgram experiment 69

The experiment

Milgram Experiment advertisement

The volunteer subject was given the role of teacher, andthe confederate, the role of learner. The participants drewslips of paper to determine their roles, but unknown to thesubject, both slips said "teacher", and the actor claimed tohave the slip that read "learner", thus guaranteeing that theparticipant would always be the "teacher". At this point,the "teacher" and "learner" were separated into differentrooms where they could communicate but not see eachother. In one version of the experiment, the confederatewas sure to mention to the participant that he had a heartcondition.[1]

The "teacher" was given an electric shock from theelectro-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 hewas to teach the learner. The teacher began by reading thelist of word pairs to the learner. The teacher would thenread the first word of each pair and read four possibleanswers. The learner would press a button to indicate hisresponse. If the answer was incorrect, the teacher wouldadminister a shock to the learner, with the voltageincreasing in 15-volt increments for each wrong answer. Ifcorrect, the teacher would read the next word pair.[1]

The subjects believed that for each wrong answer, thelearner was receiving actual shocks. In reality, there were no shocks. After the confederate was separated from thesubject, the confederate set up a tape recorder integrated with the electro-shock generator, which played pre-recordedsounds for each shock level. After a number of voltage level increases, the actor started to bang on the wall thatseparated 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 subjectspaused at 135 volts and began to question the purpose of the experiment. Most continued after being assured thatthey would not be held responsible. A few subjects began to laugh nervously or exhibit other signs of extreme stressonce 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 theexperimenter, 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 washalted 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 thelearner might suffer permanent physical harm, the experimenter replied, "Although the shocks may be painful, there

Milgram experiment 70

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

ResultsBefore conducting the experiment, Milgram polled fourteen Yale University senior-year psychology majors topredict the behavior of 100 hypothetical teachers. All of the poll respondents believed that only a very small fractionof teachers (the range was from zero to 3 out of 100, with an average of 1.2) would be prepared to inflict themaximum voltage. Milgram also informally polled his colleagues and found that they, too, believed very fewsubjects would progress beyond a very strong shock.[1] Milgram also polled forty psychiatrists from a medical schooland they believed that by the tenth shock, when the victim demands to be free, most subjects would stop theexperiment. They predicted that by the 300 volt shock, when the victim refuses to answer, only 3.73 percent of thesubjects would still continue and they believed that "only a little over one-tenth of one per cent of the subjects wouldadminister the highest shock on the board."[5]

In Milgram's first set of experiments, 65 percent (26 of 40)[1] of experiment participants administered theexperiment's final massive 450-volt shock, though many were very uncomfortable doing so; at some point, everyparticipant paused and questioned the experiment; some said they would refund the money they were paid forparticipating 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, andsome 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 littleabout how most people behave in concrete situations. I set up a simple experiment at Yale University totest how much pain an ordinary citizen would inflict on another person simply because he was orderedto by an experimental scientist. Stark authority was pitted against the subjects' [participants'] strongestmoral imperatives against hurting others, and, with the subjects' [participants'] ears ringing with thescreams of the victims, authority won more often than not. The extreme willingness of adults to go toalmost any lengths on the command of an authority constitutes the chief finding of the study and the factmost urgently demanding explanation.Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can becomeagents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their workbecome patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standardsof 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 Historyof American Psychology.Later, Prof. Milgram and other psychologists performed variations of the experiment throughout the world, withsimilar results.[7] Milgram later investigated the effect of the experiment's locale on obedience levels by holding anexperiment 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 differencewas 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 ofrepeated performances of the experiment. He found that the percentage of participants who are prepared to inflictfatal 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

Milgram experiment 71

health of the victim without requesting permission to leave, as per Milgram's notes and recollections, whenZimbardo asked him about that point.[10]

Milgram created a documentary film titled Obedience showing the experiment and its results. He also produced aseries of five social psychology films, some of which dealt with his experiments.[11]

EthicsThe Milgram Shock Experiment raised questions about the research ethics of scientific experimentation because ofthe extreme emotional stress and inflicted insight suffered by the participants. In Milgram's defense, 84 percent offormer participants surveyed later said they were "glad" or "very glad" to have participated, 15 percent chose neutralresponses (92% of all former participants responding).[12] Many later wrote expressing thanks. Milgram repeatedlyreceived offers of assistance and requests to join his staff from former participants. Six years later (at the height ofthe Vietnam War), one of the participants in the experiment sent correspondence to Milgram, explaining why he wasglad 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 ofwhy I was doing so. Few people ever realize when they are acting according to their own beliefs andwhen they are meekly submitting to authority… To permit myself to be drafted with the understandingthat I am submitting to authority's demand to do something very wrong would make me frightened ofmyself… I am fully prepared to go to jail if I am not granted Conscientious Objector status. Indeed, it isthe only course I could take to be faithful to what I believe. My only hope is that members of my boardact equally according to their conscience…[13][14]

Milgram argued that the ethical criticism provoked by his experiments was because his findings were disturbing andrevealed unwelcome truths about human nature. Others have argued that the ethical debate has diverted attentionfrom more serious problems with the experiment's methodology. Author Gina Perry found an unpublished paper inMilgram's archives that shows Milgram's own concern with how believable the experimental set-up was to subjectsinvolved. Milgram's unpublished analysis indicated that many subjects suspected that the experiment was a hoax, afinding that casts doubt on the veracity of his results. In the journal Jewish Currents, Joseph Dimow, a participant inthe 1961 experiment at Yale University, wrote about his early withdrawal as a "teacher," suspicious "that the wholeexperiment was designed to see if ordinary Americans would obey immoral orders, as many Germans had doneduring the Nazi period."[15]

InterpretationsProfessor Milgram elaborated two theories• The first is 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 neitherability nor expertise to make decisions, especially in a crisis, will leave decision making to the group and itshierarchy. The group is the person's behavioral model.

• The second is the agentic state theory, wherein, per Milgram, "the essence of obedience consists in the fact that aperson comes to view themselves as the instrument for carrying out another person's wishes, and they therefore nolonger see themselves as responsible for their actions. Once this critical shift of viewpoint has occurred in theperson, all of the essential features of obedience follow".[16]

Milgram experiment 72

Alternative interpretationsIn his book Irrational Exuberance, Yale Finance Professor Robert Shiller argues that other factors might be partiallyable to explain the Milgram Experiments:

[People] have learned that when experts tell them something is all right, it probably is, even if it does notseem so. (In fact, it is worth noting that in this case the experimenter was indeed correct: it was all rightto 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. Althoughthe participants administering the shocks were aware that the learner was unreal, the experimenters reported thatparticipants responded to the situation physiologically "as if it were real."[18]

Replications and variations

Milgram's variationsIn Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View (1974), Milgram describes 19 variations of his experiment, someof which had not been previously reported.Several experiments varied the immediacy of the teacher and learner. Generally, when the victim's physicalimmediacy was increased, the participant's compliance decreased. The participant's compliance also decreased whenthe authority's physical immediacy decreased (Experiments 1–4). For example, in Experiment 2, where participantsreceived telephonic instructions from the experimenter, compliance decreased to 21 percent. Interestingly, someparticipants 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 ashock 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 notsignificantly 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'sprestige as a possible factor influencing the participants' behavior. In those conditions, obedience dropped to 47.5percent, though the difference was not statistically significant.Milgram also combined the effect of authority with that of conformity. In those experiments, the participant wasjoined by one or two additional "teachers" (also actors, like the "learner"). The behavior of the participants' peersstrongly affected the results. In Experiment 17, when two additional teachers refused to comply, only 4 of 40participants continued in the experiment. In Experiment 18, the participant performed a subsidiary task (reading thequestions via microphone or recording the learner's answers) with another "teacher" who complied fully. In thatvariation, 37 of 40 continued with the experiment.[19]

Milgram experiment 73

Replications

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

Around the time of the release of Obedience to Authority (i.e.1973-1974), a version of the experiment was conducted at La Trobeuniversity in Australia. As reported by Gina Perry in Behind the ShockMachine[20], some of the participants experienced long-lastingpsychological effects, possibly due to the lack of proper debriefing bythe experimentor.[21]

In 2002 the British artist Rod Dickinson created The MilgramRe-enactment, an exact reconstruction of parts of the originalexperiment, including the rooms used, lighting and uniforms. Anaudience watched the four-hour performance through one-way glasswindows.[22][23] A video of this performance was first shown at theCCA Gallery in Glasgow in 2002.

A partial replication of the Milgram experiment was conducted by British psychological illusionist Derren Brownand 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 onthe Primetime series Basic Instincts. Burger noted that, "current standards for the ethical treatment of participantsclearly place Milgram’s studies out of bounds." In 2009 Burger was able to receive approval from the institutionalreview board by modifying several of the experimental protocols.[25] Burger found obedience rates virtually identicalto what Milgram found in 1961–1962, even while meeting current ethical regulations of informing participants. Inaddition, half the replication participants were female, and their rate of obedience was virtually identical to that ofthe male participants. Burger also included a condition in which participants first saw another participant refuse tocontinue. 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 May2009 as part of the long running Horizon series. Of the 12 participants, only 3 refused to continue to the end of theexperiment.In the 2010 French documentary, Le Jeu de la Mort (The Game of Death), researchers recreated the Milgramexperiment with an added critique of reality television by presenting the scenario as a game show pilot. Volunteerswere 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 NBC.The Discovery Channel aired the "How Evil are You" segment of Curiosity which aired on October 30, 2011. Theepisode 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 toensure that the participants were not previously aware of it.

Other variationsCharles Sheridan and Richard King hypothesized that some of Milgram's subjects may have suspected that thevictim 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 thefemales obeyed to the end. Many subjects showed high levels of distress during the experiment and some openlywept. In addition, Sheridan and King found that the duration for which the shock button was pressed decreased as theshocks got higher, meaning that for higher shock levels, subjects showed more hesitance towards delivering theshocks.[31][32][33]

Milgram experiment 74

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

Street Press.[34]

• The Tenth Level 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 theassassination of the President. The movie is inspired by the Kennedy assassination and the subsequent WarrenCommission investigation. Digging into the psychology of the Lee Harvey Oswald type character, the attorneyfinds out the "decoy shooter" participated in the Milgram experiment. The ongoing experiment is presented to theunsuspecting attorney.

• Atrocity is a 2005 film re-enactment of the Milgram Experiment.[36]

• The Human Behavior Experiments is a 2006 documentary by Alex Gibney about major experiments in socialpsychology, shown along with modern incidents highlighting the principles discussed. Along with StanleyMilgram's study in obedience, the documentary shows the 'diffusion of responsibility' study of John Darley andBibb 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 acharacter.

• The Milgram Experiment is a 2009 film by the Brothers Gibbs which chronicles the story of Stanley Milgram'sexperiments.

• "Authority", an episode of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit, features Merrit Rook, a suspect played by RobinWilliams, who employs the strip search prank call scam, identifying himself as "Detective Milgram". He laterreenacts a version of the Milgram experiment on Det. Elliot Stabler by ordering him to administer electric shocksto 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 thebuzzer."

• Episode 114 of the Howie Mandel show Howie Do It repeated the experiment with a single pair of subjects usingthe premise of a Japanese game show.

• The second scene in the 1984 film Ghostbusters [37] has Dr. Venkman shocking a human test subject during anExtrasensory perception experiment. Albeit, one must take into account that Dr. Venkman was shocking only themale 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 willtake part in a staged heist afterwards.[38]

• The Discovery Channel's Curiosity TV series featured an episode where Eli Roth recreated the experiment askingthe question, "50 years later, have we changed?"

• Foolin Around is a 1980 movie starting Gary Busey and Annette O'Toole, which uses a Milgram experimentparody in a comedic scene.

Milgram experiment 75

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 theirinteractions. (http:/ / www. stanleymilgram. com/ pdf/ understanding behavoir. pdf). 60. pp. 398–413. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.60.3.398. .

[4] Baumrind, Diana (1964). "Some Thoughts on Ethics of Research: After Reading Milgram's "Behavioral Study of Obedience". AmericanPsychologist 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) on2011-05-14. . Abridged and adapted from Obedience to Authority.

[7][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][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][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][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][33] Blass 1999, p. 968

Milgram experiment 76

[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 TheMan 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 aninterview with one of Milgram's volunteers, and discusses modern interest in, and scepticism about, theexperiment.

• Tarnow, Eugen. "Towards the Zero Accident Goal: Assisting the First Officer Monitor and Challenge CaptainErrors" (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 ofSocial Psychology.” (http:/ / vladarticles. yolasite. com/ resources/ Stanley Milgram and Siegfried Lenz. pdf)Neophilologus: International Journal of Modern and Mediaeval Language and Literature (http:/ / www.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 experimentat 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 from50 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.

Milgram experiment 77

• 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 theexperiment

The Monster StudyThe Monster Study is the name given to a stuttering experiment performed on twenty-two orphan children inDavenport, Iowa in 1939. It was conducted by Wendell Johnson at the University of Iowa. Johnson chose one of hisgraduate students, Mary Tudor, to conduct the experiment and he supervised her research. After placing the childrenin control and experimental groups, Tudor gave positive speech therapy to half of the children, praising the fluencyof their speech, and negative speech therapy to the other half, belittling the children for every speech imperfectionand telling them they were stutterers. Many of the normal speaking orphan children who received negative therapy inthe 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 orphanchildren to prove a hypothesis, the experiment was kept hidden for fear Johnson's reputation would be tarnished inthe wake of human experiments conducted by the Nazis during World War II. The University of Iowa publiclyapologized for the Monster Study in 2001.Patricia Zebrowski, University of Iowa assistant professor of speech pathology and audiology, notes, "The body ofdata that resulted from Johnson's work on children who stutter and their parents is still the largest collection ofscientific information on the subject of stuttering onset. Although new work has determined that children who stutterare doing something different in their speech production than non-stutterers, Johnson was the first to talk about theimportance of a stutterer's thoughts, attitudes, beliefs, and feelings. We still don't know what causes stuttering, butthe 'Iowa' way of approaching study and treatment is still heavily influenced by Johnson, but with an added emphasison speech production."[1]

The studyThe research began with the selection of twenty-two subjects from a veterans' orphanage in Iowa. None were told theintent of her research, and they believed that they were to receive speech therapy. Tudor was trying to inducestuttering 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 stutterersbefore the study began. Tudor and five other graduate students who agreed to serve as judges listened to each of thechildren speak, graded them on a scale from 1 (poor) to 5 (fluent) and concurred with the school's assessment. Fivewere 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 wereassigned 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 theirnice 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

The Monster Study 78

left-handed but were using your right hand, your nerve impulses would misfire, affecting your speech. Johnson didnot believe the theory, but still suggested Tudor test each child's handedness. She had them draw on chalkboards andsqueeze the bulb of the dynamometer. Most were right-handed, but left-handed children were present in all of thegroups. There was no correlation between handedness and speech in this subject crop. During this period, theyassigned 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 Tudordriving to Davenport from Iowa City every few weeks and talking with each child for about 45 minutes. Shefollowed an agreed-upon script. In her dissertation, she reported that she talked to the stuttering youngsters who weregoing to be told that they did not stutter. She said to them, in part, "You'll outgrow [the stuttering], and you will beable to speak even much better than you are speaking now. . . . Pay no attention to what others say about yourspeaking 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 theconclusion that you have a great deal of trouble with your speech. . . . You have many of the symptoms of a childwho is beginning to stutter. You must try to stop yourself immediately. Use your will power. . . . Do anything tokeep from stuttering. . . . Don't ever speak unless you can do it right. You see how [the name of a child in theinstitution 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, Tudorwrote, "It was very difficult to get her to speak, although she spoke very freely the month before." Another in thegroup, 9-year-old Betty Romp, "practically refuses to talk," a researcher wrote in his final evaluation. "Held hand orarm 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 askedwhy she said 'a' so much. "Because I'm afraid I can't say the next word." "Why did you snap your fingers?" "BecauseI 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-oldClarence Fifer, started anxiously correcting himself. "He stopped and told me he was going to have trouble on wordsbefore he said them," Tudor reported. She asked him how he knew. He said that the sound "wouldn't come out. Feelslike it's stuck in there."The sixth orphan, Mary Korlaske, a 12-year-old, grew withdrawn and fractious. During their sessions, Tudor askedwhether 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 rougherIndustrial 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 theorphanage to voluntarily provide follow-up care. She told the IIA children that they didn't stutter after all. Theimpact, however well-meaning, was questionable. She wrote to Johnson about the orphans in a slightly defensiveletter dated April 22, 1940, "I believe that in time they . . . will recover, but we certainly made a definite impressionon them."[3]

CriticismThe 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."

The Monster Study 79

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 waspoorly designed and executed by Tudor, and as a result the data offered no proof of Johnson's subsequent hypothesisthat "stuttering begins, not in the child's mouth but in the parent's ear" -- i.e., that it is the well-meaning parent'seffort to help the child avoid what the parent has labeled "stuttering" (but is in fact within the range of normalspeech) that contributes to what ultimately becomes the problem diagnosed as stuttering.

CompensationOn 17 August 2007, six of the orphan children were awarded $925,000 by the State of Iowa for lifelongpsychological and emotional scars caused by six months of torment during the Iowa University experiment. Thestudy learned that although none of the children became stutterers, some became self-conscious and reluctant tospeak.[4] A spokesman of the University of Iowa called the experiment "regrettable" and added: "This is a study thatshould 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 MonsterStudy and maintained that Wendell Johnson should have done more to reverse the negative effects on the orphanchildren's speech. In spite of Wendell Johnson's role in the creation of the Monster Study, Tudor still felt she hadmade many positive contributions to speech pathology and stuttering research..

Story originsThe 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 theexperiment. The state tried unsuccessfully to have the lawsuit dismissed but in September, 2005, the Iowa's SupremeCourt 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, whotestified in a deposition on Nov. 19, 2002, there were no actual eye witnesses to the events. The advanced age of thethree surviving former orphans on the plaintiff's side helped expedite a settlement with the state. The Iowa attorneygeneral'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 tomemories going back almost 70 years. For all parties, it ends long-running, difficult and costly litigation that onlywould have run up more expenses and delayed resolution to plaintiffs who are in their seventies and eighties." (DMRegister)Despite the settlement, the debate remains contentious over what harm, if any, the Monster Study caused the orphanchildren. Nicholas Johnson, the son of the late Wendell Johnson, has vehemently defended his father. He and somespeech pathologists have argued that Wendell Johnson did not intend to harm the orphan children and that none ofthe orphans actually were diagnosed as "stutterers" at the end of the experiment. Other speech pathologists havecondemned the experiment and said that the orphans' speech and behavior was adversely affected by the negativeconditioning they received. Letters between Mary Tudor and Wendell Johnson that were written shortly after theexperiment ended showed that the children's speech had deteriorated significantly. Mary Tudor returned to theorphanage three times to try and reverse the negative effects caused by the experiment but lamented the fact that shewas unable to provide enough positive therapy to reverse the deleterious effects. (Ethics and Orphans. San JoseMercury 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

The Monster Study 80

compared with ethical violations in human subjects research in other fields, conducted throughout the second half ofthe 20th century. These latter cases, reviewed, approved and funded in major research institutions, sometimesresulted 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, thethesis was bound, catalogued, and made available in the university's library in identical fashion to all other masterstheses. 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 ofstuttering—either as to its cause or a single, most appropriate therapy. (This statement is consistent with what isattributed 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][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)

Naturalistic observation 81

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

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 behaviorsexhibited more credible because they are occurring in a real typical scenario as opposed to an artificial one generatedwithin a lab.[3] Naturalistic observation also allows for study of events that it is deemed unethical to study viaexperimental 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 qualitiesof animals. They can be overt (the participants are aware they are being observed) or covert (the participants do notknow they are being observed). There are obviously more ethical guidelines to take into consideration when a covertobservation 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.

Nun Study 82

Nun StudyThe Nun Study of Aging and Alzheimer's Disease is a continuing longitudinal study, begun in 1986, to examinethe onset of Alzheimer's Disease. David Snowdon, the founding Nun Study investigator, originally began hisresearch 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. Similarenvironmental influences and general lifestyles make the nuns an ideal population to study, and although it isongoing it has yielded several findings.[1]

OriginThe Nun Study, begun (officially) in 1986 with funding by the National Institute on Aging, focuses on a group of678 American Roman Catholic sisters who are members of the School Sisters of Notre Dame. Studying a relativelyhomogeneous group (no drug use, little or no alcohol, similar housing and reproductive histories, etc.) minimizes theextraneous variables that may confound other similar research.

Current findingsResearchers have also accessed the convent archive to review documents amassed throughout the lives of the nuns inthe study. Among the documents reviewed were autobiographical essays [2] that had been written by the nuns uponjoining 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 wasmerely 22 years. Roughly 80% of nuns whose writing was measured as lacking in linguistic density went on todevelop Alzheimer's disease in old age; meanwhile, of those whose writing was not lacking, only 10% laterdeveloped the disease.[3]

Overall, findings of the Nun Study suggest "that traits in early, mid, and late life have strong relationships with therisk 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 meantabove by a "lack of linguistic density."

• "Landmark Study Links Cognitive Ability of Youth With Alzheimer's Disease Risk Later in Life" [8] NationalInstitute on Aging, entry on Nun Study, 1996

• Agatha Christie And Nuns Tell A Tale Of Alzheimer's [9], on NPR

Nun Study 83

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][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 paradigmThe oddball paradigm is a technique used in evoked potential research in which trains of stimuli that are usuallyauditory or visual are used to assess the neural reactions to unpredictable but recognizable events. The subject isasked to react either by counting or by button pressing incidences of target stimuli that are hidden as rare occurrencesamongst a series of more common stimuli, that often require no response. It has been found that an evoked researchpotential across the parieto-central area of the skull that is usually around 300 ms and called P300 is larger after thetarget 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 varieswith the improbability of the targets. Its latency varies with the difficulty of discriminating the target stimulus fromthe standard stimuli.[2]

Detection of these targets reliably evokes transient activity in prefrontal cortical regions. Measuring hemodynamicbrain activity in the prefrontal cortex using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) revealed that thedorsolateral 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 supposethat it would be absent during sleep-a time in which information processing of external stimuli is commonly thoughtto be inhibited. Research to date indicates that P300 can be recorded during the transition to sleep and then reappearsin 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 showfrontal deactivation is characteristic of REM sleep. These findings indicate that while sleepers may be able to detectstimulus 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 oninformation processing. However, an oddball tends to be perceptually more novel than the standard, repeatedstimulus as well as more relevant to the ongoing task, making it difficult to disentangle effects due to perceptualnovelty and stimulus significance. Evaluating different brain ERP’s can decipher this effect. A frontro-central N2component of ERP is primarily affected by perceptual novelty, whereas only the centro-parietal P3 component ismodulated by both stimulus significance and novelty.[5]

The classic auditory oddball paradigm can be modified to produce different neural responses and can therefore beused 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

Oddball paradigm 84

underpinnings.[7]

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

References[1][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][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][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][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][7] Beyond the Oddball in Schizophrenia Research: Neurophysiologic Studies of Memory and Language Processing. (2010). Psychophysiology,

47S10-S11.[8][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 testsThe Oklahoma City sonic boom tests, also known as Operation Bongo II, refer to a controversial experiment inwhich 1,253 sonic booms were carried out over Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, over a period of six months in 1964. Theexperiment, which ran from February 3 through July 29, 1964, inclusive, intended to quantify the effects oftranscontinental supersonic transport (SST) aircraft on a city. The program was managed by the Federal AviationAdministration, 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 Universityof Chicago.It was not the first experiment, as tests had been done at Wallops Island, Virginia, in 1958 and 1960, at Nellis AirForce Base, Nevada, in 1960 and 1961, and in St. Louis, Missouri, in 1961 and 1962. However, none of these testsexamined sociological and economic factors in any detail. The Oklahoma City experiments were vastly larger inscope, seeking to measure the boom's effect on structures and public attitude, and to develop standards for boomprediction 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 ForceBase, both of which were based there.

The sonic boomsStarting on February 3, 1964, the first sonic booms began, eight booms per day that began at 7 a.m. and ended in theafternoon. The noise was limited to 1.0 to 1.5 pound-force per square foot (48 to 72 pascal) for the first twelveweeks, then increased to 1.5 to 2.0 psf (72 to 96 pascal) for the final fourteen weeks. This range was about equal tothat expected from an SST. Though eight booms per day were harsh, the peak overpressures of 2.0 psf weresupposedly an order of magnitude lower than that needed to shatter glass, and are considered marginally irritatingaccording 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 atspecific times. An FAA-hired camera crew, filming a group of construction workers, were surprised to find that the

Oklahoma City sonic boom tests 85

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 LibertyNational Bank, were broken. By late spring, organized civic groups were already springing into action, but wererebuffed by city politicians, who asked them to show legislators their support. An attempt to lodge an injunctionagainst the tests was denied by district court Judge Stephen Chandler, who said that the plaintiffs could not establishthat they suffered any mental or physical harm and that the tests were a vital national need. A restraining order wasthen sought, which brought a pause to the tests on May 13 until it was decided that the court had exceeded itsauthority.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 newspapersbegan to pick up the issue, turning on the national spotlight. On June 6 the Saturday Review published an articletitled The Era of Supersonic Morality, which criticized the manner in which the FAA had targeted a city withoutconsulting local government. By July, the Washington Post reported on the turmoil at the local and state level inOklahoma. Oklahoma City council members were finally beginning to respond to citizen complaints and putpressure on Washington.The pressure put a premature end to the tests. On July 30, the tests were over. An Oklahoma City Times headlinereported: "Silence is deafening!" Zhivko D. Angeluscheff, a prominent hearing specialist serving with the NationalAcademy of Science, recalled: "I was witness to the fact that men were executing their brethren during six longmonths ... with their thunder, the sonic boom, they were punishing all living creatures on earth."

The falloutThe results of the experiment, reported by NORC, were released beginning in February, 1965.[1][2][3] The FAA wasdispleased by the overly academic style of the report, but stressed the positive findings, saying "the overwhelmingmajority felt they could learn to live with the numbers and kinds of booms experienced." Indeed, the NORC reportedthat 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 Citysurgeons and hospitals filed no complaints.However, with the city population at 500,000, that 3% figure represented 15,000 upset individuals. At least 15,452complaints and 4,901 claims were lodged against the U.S. government, most for cracked glass and plaster. The FAArejected 94% of all the claims it received, fueling a rising tide of anger that soared even after the experiment'sconclusion. By 1965, Senator Monroney had grown extremely upset over hundreds of letters from his constituentscomplaining about the FAA's "cavalier manner" of dismissing claims, and began demanding frequent reports fromthe agency. As late as May 1966, the FAA was still attempting to respond to all of Monroney's inquiries. The SSTprogram 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. Afterthe tests, President Lyndon B. Johnson's presidential advisory committee transferred matters of policy from the FAAto the National Academy of Science. Secretary of the Interior Stewart Udall complained that the NAS did not includeone environmental preservationist, and pointed out that although the Oklahoma City tests were stacked in favor ofthe SST, they were still extremely negative. Indeed by 1966, national grassroots campaigns against sonic boomswere 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 testspartially influenced the 1971 cancellation of the Boeing 2707 project and led to the United States' completewithdrawal from SST design.

Oklahoma City sonic boom tests 86

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• Sonic Boom and the Supersonic Transport (http:/ / www. airpower. airuniv. edu/ airchronicles/ aureview/ 1971/

jul-aug/ roberds. html), Maj. Richard M. Roberds, Air University, U.S. Air Force, 1971.• OKC endured 1,494 sonic booms in 1964 (http:/ / www. edmondpaper. com/ detail. php?116294,5,37), Steve

Gust, Edmond Life & Leisure, 2005.• The Effects of Sonic Boom and Similar Impulsive Noise on Structures (http:/ / www. noisepollution. org/ epa/

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 rodentsin scientific research.[1]

Experimental Design

A Circular Open Field

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 activityand willingness to explore in rodents.[3] The open field is a table that may havesurrounding walls to prevent escape. Commonly the field is marked in a grid and squarecrossings, rearing, and time spent moving are used to assess the activity of the rodent. Inthe modern open field apparatus, infrared beams can be used to automate the assessmentprocess. The OFT is also often used to assess anxiety by including additional measuresof 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 beenanalyzed in two mouse strains.[5] Changes in these measures are often used to assess the sedative or stimulant effectsof pharmacological agents. This basic behavioral assessment is used in almost every study involving rodentbehavior.

Newer attempts has been to analyse the OFT by quantifying the animal's moment-by-moment developmentaldynamics. A recent study was able to show that mouse exploratory behavior consists of sequences of repeatedmotion: iterative processes that increase in extent and complexity, whose presumed function is a systematic activemanagement of input acquired during the exploration of a novel environment.[6]

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

The Psychology Experiment Building Language (PEBL)

Developer(s) The PEBL Project [1]

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]

OverviewPEBL 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 beused in PEBL, as well as a large number of functions written in PEBL itself [2] [3] PEBL supports presenting stimulivia text, images, movies, audio files; allows response collection via keypress, mouse, joystick, and specializedhardware devices; and supports a number of networking and communication protocols. The PEBL system andrelated files have been downloaded more than 100,000 times [4].

PEBL (software) 88

The PEBL Test BatteryAs well as allowing researchers to develop their own experiments, PEBL includes a set of more than 50 commonpsychological testing paradigms as part of its Test Battery. Many of its tests have been used and published inpeer-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 Linkshttp:/ / pebl. sourceforge. net

Pit of despair 89

Pit of despairThe 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 theUniversity of Wisconsin–Madison in the 1970s.[1] The aim of the research was to produce an animal model ofclinical depression. Researcher Stephen Suomi described the device as "little more than a stainless-steel trough withsides 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 throughthe drain and out of holes drilled in the stainless-steel. The chamber was equipped with a food box and awater-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, heplaced monkeys between three months and three years old in the chamber alone, after they had bonded with theirmothers, for up to ten weeks.[3] Within a few days, they had stopped moving about and remained huddled in acorner.

BackgroundMuch 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 conesto a machine that modeled abusive mothers by assaulting the baby monkeys with cold air or spikes.[4] The point ofthe experiments was to pinpoint the basis of the mother-child relationship, namely whether the infant primarilysought 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 workbut, as Lauren Slater writes, his colleagues noticed a difference in his demeanor.[5] He abandoned his research intomaternal 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-waymirror, so the experimenters could look in, but the monkey could not look out. The only connection the monkey hadwith the world was when the experimenters' hands changed his bedding or delivered fresh water and food. Babymonkeys were placed in these boxes soon after birth; four were left for 30 days, four for six months, and four for ayear.After 30 days, the "total isolates," as they were called, were found to be "enormously disturbed." After being isolatedfor a year, they barely moved, did not explore or play, and were incapable of having sexual relations. When placedwith other monkeys for a daily play session, they were badly bullied. Two of them refused to eat and starvedthemselves 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 whichthe female isolates were tied in normal monkey mating posture. He found that, just as they were incapable of havingsexual relations, they were also unable to parent their offspring, either abusing or neglecting them. "Not even in ourmost 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 herbaby's face to the floor and chewed off his feet and fingers. Another crushed her baby's head. Most of them simplyignored their offspring.[6]

These experiments showed Harlow what total and partial isolation did to developing monkeys, but he felt he had notcaptured the essence of depression, which he believed was characterized by feelings of loneliness, helplessness, anda sense of being trapped, or being "sunk in a well of despair," he said.[6]

Pit of despair 90

Vertical chamber apparatusThe technical name for the new depression chamber was "vertical chamber apparatus," though Harlow himselfinsisted on calling it the "pit of despair." He had at first wanted to call it the "dungeon of despair," and also usedterms like "well of despair," and "well of loneliness." Blum writes that his colleagues tried to persuade him to not touse such descriptive terms, that a less visual name would be easier politically. Gene Sackett of the University ofWashington 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 ofthe 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. Theopening 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 thebottom 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 wrotethat he could find no monkey who had any defense against it. Even the happiest monkeys came out damaged. Heconcluded 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, thatmonkeys, normally very social animals in nature, emerge from isolation badly damaged, and that some recover whileothers do not.[9]

ReactionThe experiments were condemned, both at the time and later, from within the scientific community and elsewhere inacademia. In 1974, American literary critic Wayne C. Booth wrote that, "Harry Harlow and his colleagues go ontorturing their nonhuman primates decade after decade, invariably proving what we all knew in advance—that socialcreatures can be destroyed by destroying their social ties." He writes that Harlow made no mention of the criticism ofthe morality of his work.[10]

Harlow's colleagues and doctoral students also expressed concern. Sackett told Blum that, in his view, the animalliberation 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, saidthat Harlow had himself been very depressed by his wife's cancer. Snowdon was appalled by the design of thevertical chambers. He asked Suomi why they were using them, and Harlow replied, "Because that's how it feelswhen you're depressed."[11] Leonard Rosenblum, who studied under Harlow, told Lauren Slater that Harlow enjoyedusing 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 thatHarlow "kept this going to the point where it was clear to many people that the work was really violating ordinarysensibilities, that anybody with respect for life or people would find this offensive. It's as if he sat down and said, 'I'monly going to be around another ten years. What I'd like to do, then, is leave a great big mess behind.' If that was hisaim, he did a perfect job."[8]

Pit of despair 91

Notes[1][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][2] Suomi 1971, p. 33.[3][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][5] Slater 2005, pp. 251-2[6][6] Blum 2002, p. 216.[7][7] Blum 1994, p. 95; Blum 2002, p. 219.[8][8] Blum 1994, p. 218.[9][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, "Hismost recent outrage consists of placing monkeys in "solitary" for twenty days—what he calls a "vertical chamber apparatus ... designed on anintuitive basis" to produce "a state of helplessness and hopelessness, sunken in a well of despair."

[11][11] Blum 2002, p. 220.[12][12] Slater 2005, p. 148[13][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

mulatta) reared with living or inanimate substitute mothers" (http:/ / content. apa. org/ journals/ com/ 114/ 2/115). 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-agerhesus 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: Thesissubmitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Psychology) at theUniversity of Wisconsin," University of Wisconsin, 1971, p. 33.

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

htm)

Project Pigeon 92

Project PigeonDuring 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 remainedin the center of the screen, the missile would fly straight, but pecks off-center would cause the screen to tilt, whichwould 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 theresearch. 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 canceledon October 8, 1944, because the military believed that "further prosecution of this project would seriously delayothers 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 electronicguidance 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)

Pseudoword 93

PseudowordA pseudoword is a unit of speech or text that appears to be an actual word in a certain language (at leastsuperficially), while in fact it has no meaning in the lexicon. It is a kind of non-lexical vocable. Within linguistics, apseudoword is defined specifically as respecting the phonotactic restrictions of a language. That is, it does notinclude sounds or series of sounds that do not exist in that language: it is easily pronounceable for speakers of thelanguage. Also, when written down, a pseudoword does not include strings of characters that are not permissible inthe spelling of the target language. "Vonk" is a pseudoword in English, while "dfhnxd" is not. The latter is anexample of a nonword. Nonwords are contrasted with pseudowords in that they are not pronounceable and by thattheir 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 tochildren. The experimenter would then prompt the children to create a plural for wug, which was almost invariablywugs [wʌgz]. The experiments were designed to see if English morphophonemics would be applied by children tonovel words. They revealed that even at a very young age, children have already internalized many of the complexfeatures of their language.A logatome is a short pseudoword or just a syllable which is used in acoustic experiments to examine speechrecognition.

Nonsense syllablesA logatome or nonsense syllable is a short pseudoword consisting most of the time of just one syllable which has nomeaning 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 oflearning as a way to examine speech recognition.[2] and in experimental psychology, especially the psychology oflearning and memory.Nonsense syllables were first introduced by Hermann Ebbinghaus[3] in his experiments on the learning of lists. Hisintention was that they would form a standard stimulus so that experiments would be reproducible. However, withincreasing use it became apparent that different nonsense syllables were learned at very different rates, even whenthey had the same superficial structure. Glaze[4] introduced the concept of association value to describe thesedifferences, which turned out to be reliable between people and situations. Since Glaze's time, experiments usingnonsense 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, avowel, and a consonant. These have the advantage that nearly all are pronounceable, that is, they fit the phonotacticsof any language that uses closed syllables, such as English and German. They are often described as "CVCtrigrams", reflecting their three-letter structure. Obviously many other structures are possible, and can be describedon the same principles, e.g. VC, VCV, CVCV. But the CVC trigrams have been studied most intensively; forexample, 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 scatsinging but also in many other forms of vocal music. Although such usages do not invoke the technical issues aboutstructure and associability that are of concern in psychology, the essential meaning of the term is the same.

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 statisticsPsychological statistics is the application of statistics to psychology. Some of the more common applicationsinclude:1.1. psychometrics2.2. learning theory3.3. perception4.4. human development5.5. abnormal psychology6.6. Personality test7.7. psychological testsSome 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 95

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

Psychomotor vigilance task 96

Psychomotor vigilance task

Task Performanceand Analysis

Diagnostics

MeSH D013647 [1]

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

Screen shot of PEBL's Perceptual Vigilance Test

How it works

The PVT is a simple task where the subject presses a button as soon asthe light appears. The light will turn on randomly every few secondsfor 5–10 minutes. The main measurement of this task is not to assessthe reaction time, but to see how many times the button is not pressedwhen the light is on. The purpose of the PVT is to measure sustainedattention, and give a numerical measure of sleepiness by counting thenumber of lapses in attention of the tested subject.[4]

Where it has been usedThe Psychomotor Vigilance Self Test on the International Space Station (Reaction Self Test) provides thecrewmembers with feedback on neurobehavioral changes in vigilant attention, state stability, and impulsivity. It aidscrewmembers to objectively identify when their performance capability is degraded by various fatigue-relatedconditions 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 inspace flight because unlike other cognitive tests, it is brief while being free of learning effects and aptitude differencethat make interpretation of other measures difficult, as it has been successfully deployed in three NASA missions.[5]

Psychomotor vigilance task 97

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 ofSouth 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 inPsychology 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

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]

PsychoPy is an open source software package, written in Python programming language, for the generation ofexperiments for neuroscience and experimental psychology [2][3].Unlike most packages it provides users with a choice of interface; generate experiments by writing Python scripts orthrough 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 andOpenGL for graphics calls.

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 moviesor use CLUT animation techniques).

•• 2003-2005: this was extended to be able to generate experiments in the author's lab at Nottingham University andmade 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 widerange of experiments without a knowledge of programming.

• April 2011: Used for both research and undergraduate teaching at various universities. Over 1500 users per monthworldwide [4]. Still at Version 1.64 (not yet v2.00), due to remaining issues especially with the Builder interface.

PsychoPy 99

Key people•• Jonathan Peirce•• Jeremy Gray•• Yaroslav Halchenko

References[1] http:/ / www. psychopy. org/[2][2] Peirce, J.W. (2007). PsychoPy - psychophysics software in Python. Journal of Neuroscience Methods 162:8-1[3][3] Peirce, J.W. (2008). Generating stimuli for neuroscience using PsychoPy. Frontiers in Neuroinformatics, 2: 10[4] 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)

PsyScopePsyScope is a graphical user interface (GUI) software program that allows researchers to design and runpsychological experiments. It runs on Apple Macintosh computers and was originally designed for use with the MacOS 9 platform. PsyScope was originally developed by an interdisciplinary team of researchers at Carnegie MellonUniversity, including Jonathan Cohen, Matthew Flatt, Brian MacWhinney, and Jefferson Provost.[1][2] It has beenported to Mac OS X by a group of researchers and programmers coordinated by researchers at SISSA, Italy and thePompeu Fabra University, Spain. It is still under active development. The program and its code are open source andfreely available (see external link). It currently runs under Mac OS X Snow Leopard. With respect to its Mac OS 9incarnation, PsyScope X has a much more complete control of movies and sounds, can interact with the underlyingUnix environment, and allows researchers to design programs that use several external devices, such as responsedevices to record participants' responses, or Evoked potential and eye tracking recording devices.It is difficult to estimate exactly how many researchers use the program. Currently, no support exist for the Mac OS9 version. However, many researchers in several well respected universities around the world use PsyScope X togenerate 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][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][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)

Rat Park 100

Rat ParkRat Park was a study into drug addiction conducted in the late 1970s (and published in 1980), by Canadianpsychologist 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 drugscommonly observed in laboratory rats exposed to it is attributable to their living conditions, and not to any addictiveproperty of the drug itself.[1] He told the Canadian Senate in 2001 that prior experiments in which laboratory ratswere kept isolated in cramped metal cages, tethered to a self-injection apparatus, show only that "severely distressedanimals, 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 ofa standard laboratory cage. There were 16–20 rats of both sexes in residence, an abundance of food, balls and wheelsfor play, and enough space for mating and raising litters.[3]:166 The results of the experiment appeared to support hishypothesis. Rats who had been forced to consume morphine hydrochloride for 57 consecutive days were brought toRat Park and given a choice between plain tap water and water laced with morphine. For the most part, they chosethe plain water. "Nothing that we tried," Alexander wrote, "... produced anything that looked like addiction in ratsthat were housed in a reasonably normal environment."[1] Control groups of rats isolated in small cages consumedmuch more morphine in this and several subsequent experiments.The two major science journals, Science and Nature, rejected Alexander, Coambs, and Hadaway's first paper, whichappeared instead in Psychopharmacology, a respectable but much smaller journal in 1978. The paper's publicationinitially attracted no response.[4] Within a few years, Simon Fraser University withdrew Rat Park's funding.

The disease model of drug addiction

The disease model explains addiction with reference to the actionof drugs on the reward pathways in the limbic system. Researchers

say that opiates cause changes in the mesolimbic dopaminergicpathway that produce feelings of pleasure. (Image courtesy of the

National Institute on Drug Abuse.)

It is not disputed that some substances cause withdrawalsymptoms after repeated use, leaving the user in distressif they stop using. Where scientists differ is over theextent to which certain substances can be said to rob theuser of self control, causing not only withdrawal[5]— buta drug addiction, defined as "a behavioral pattern of druguse, characterized by overwhelming involvement with theuse 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 signof akrasia, immorality, or weakness of the will. However20th century brain research replaced this moral modelwith a disease model of addiction, according to whichaddiction to a drug is a by-product of the chemicalstructure of the drug itself. According to socialpsychologist Stanton Peele, the disease model states that"[t]olerance, withdrawal, and craving are thought to beproperties of particular drugs, and sufficient use of these substances is believed to give the organism no choice but tobehave in these stereotypical ways."[6] This view of drug addiction is reflected in the policies of the War on Drugsand 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

Rat Park 101

addiction.[7] Goldstein writes that the site of action of heroin and all other addictive drugs is a bundle of neuronsdeep in the brain called the mesolimbic dopaminergic pathway, a reward pathway that mediates feelings of wantingand motivation. Within this pathway, heroin causes dopamine neurons to release dopamine, a neurotransmitter thatdetermines incentive salience and causes the user to want more. Dopamine neurons are normally held in check byinhibitory neurons, but heroin shuts these down, allowing the dopamine neurons to become overstimulated. Thebrain 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 atthe same time, the reward pathway becomes less sensitive to the effects of endorphins, which regulate the release ofdopamine, so that without heroin, there is a persistent feeling of sickness. After repeated intake, the user becomestolerant and dependent, and undergoes withdrawal symptoms if the heroin supply is terminated. As the feelings ofwithdrawal worsen, the user loses control, writes Goldstein, and becomes an addict.[7]

Studies of isolated laboratory animals generally support the disease model

Image from the U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse of a ratself-administering a drug. Professor Avram Goldstein writes: "A rat addicted

to heroin is not rebelling against society, is not a victim of socioeconomiccircumstances, 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]

According to Alexander, the disease modelmakes either of two claims:• Claim A: All or most people who use heroin

or cocaine beyond a certain minimum amountbecome addicted.

• Claim B: No matter what proportion of theusers of heroin and cocaine become addicted,their addiction is caused by exposure to thedrug.[1]

Several decades of animal studies have beenseen as supporting these claims. AvramGoldstein wrote in 1979: "If a monkey isprovided with a lever, which he can press toself-inject heroin, he establishes a regular patternof heroin use — a true addiction — that takespriority over the normal activities of his life ...Since this behavior is seen in several otheranimal species (primarily rats), I have to infer that if heroin were easily available to everyone, and if there were nosocial 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. methadoneconference, he wrote: "Every addictive drug used by people is also self-administered by rats and monkeys. If wearrange matters so that when an animal presses a lever, it gets a shot of heroin into a vein, that animal will press thelever repeatedly, to the exclusion of other activities (food, sex, etc.); it will become a heroin addict. A rat addicted toheroin is not rebelling against society, is not a victim of socioeconomic circumstances, is not a product of adysfunctional family, and is not a criminal. The rat's behavior is simply controlled by the action of heroin (actuallymorphine, 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

Rat Park 102

States and England during the 19th century was greater than it is now, the incidence of dependence and addictionnever reached one percent of the population and was declining at the end of the century.[1] In Britain, he writes thatheroin 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 a1982 study of the statistics on iatrogenic addiction in the UK showed a "virtual absence" of such addicts.[9] Recentresearch confirms that many people use heroin regularly for years, for either recreational or medical purposes,without becoming addicted.[10]

The Rat Park experiments

A white Wistar lab rat

In Rat Park, Alexander built a short tunnel large enough toaccommodate one rat at a time. At the far end of the tunnel, the ratscould drink a fluid from one of two drop dispensers, whichautomatically recorded how much each rat drank. One dispensercontained 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'apparent sweet tooth to test whether they could be enticed to consumemorphine if the water was sweet enough. Morphine in solution has abitter taste for humans, and appears to have the same effect on rats, Alexander writes, since they shake their headsand reject it as they do with bitter quinine solutions. The Seduction Experiment involved four groups of rats. GroupCC was isolated in laboratory cages when they were weaned at 22 days of age, and lived there until the experimentended at 80 days of age; Group PP was housed in Rat Park for the same period; Group CP was moved fromlaboratory cages to Rat Park at 65 days of age; and Group PC was moved out of Rat Park and into cages at 65 daysof age.The caged rats (Groups CC and PC) took to the morphine instantly, even with relatively little sweetener, with thecaged males drinking 19 times more morphine than the Rat Park males in one of the experimental conditions. But nomatter how sweet the morphine became, the rats in Rat Park resisted it. They would try it occasionally — with thefemales 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, therats who were brought up in cages but moved to Rat Park before the experiment began. These animals rejected themorphine solution when it was stronger, but as it became sweeter and more dilute, they began to drink almost asmuch as the rats that had lived in cages throughout the experiment. They wanted the sweet water, he concluded, solong as it did not disrupt their normal social behavior.[1] Even more significant, he writes, was that when he added adrug called Naloxone, which negates the effects of opioids, to the morphine-laced water, the Rat Park rats began todrink it.In another experiment, he forced rats in ordinary lab cages to consume morphine for 57 days on end, giving them noliquid to drink other than the morphine-laced solution, then moved them into Rat Park, where he allowed them tochoose between the morphine solution and plain water. They drank the plain water. He writes that they did showsome signs of dependence, but no sign of addiction. There were "some minor withdrawal signs, twitching, what haveyou, 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

Rat Park 103

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

Reaction to the experimentThe two major science journals Science and Nature rejected Alexander's first paper, which was published inPsychopharmacology, 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 nothingcame 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 aformer U.S. deputy drug czar, on what was wrong with Rat Park. He replied that the experiment was "ingenious," butsuggested that Alexander may have distorted the data in the hope of provoking a public debate, and that the studyhad methodological flaws, though he did not state examples. Slater believes Rat Park's problem was that it wasconducted 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 drawattention to the idea that the environment that laboratory animals live in might influence the outcome in experimentsrelated to addiction. As of 2006, papers from the series of experiments have been cited more than 100 times, andsimilar 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 manycultures. His newest book, "The Globalisation of Addiction: A study in poverty of the spirit" argues that culturaldislocation of human beings instigates addictions of all sorts, including addictions that do not involve drugs, just asisolation instigates drug consumption in laboratory animals.

Related researchRecent research has shown that an enriched environment may decrease morphine addiction in mice.[13] Enrichedenvironments also decrease deficits in animal models of Parkinson's disease,[14] Huntington's disease,[15] andAlzheimer'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][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

Rat Park 104

[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: OxfordUniversity Press. !SBN 0199230129

• Bozarth, M.A., Murray, A. & Wise, R.A. (1989) "Influence of housing conditions on the acquisition ofintraveneous 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 druguse, (http:/ / www. psychedelic-library. org/ davies/ myth_of_addiction. htm) Harwood Academic Publishers,Char, Switzerland

• Goldstein, Avram. (1979) "Heroin maintenance: A medical view. A conversation between a physician and apolitician," 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 Dependencemethadone 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), ThePharmacological Basis of Therapeutics (7th edition), p 532–581. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co.,1985.</ref>

• 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/ )

Rat Park 105

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 andbad news," Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 15, 77–91.

• Alexander, B.K. (1987) "The disease and adaptive models of addiction: A framework evaluation," Journal ofDrug 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

St. Elizabeths psychiatric hospital, Washington, D.C., one of the sites ofthe Rosenhan experiment

The Rosenhan experiment was a famousexperiment into the validity of psychiatric diagnosis,conducted by psychologist David Rosenhan andpublished by the journal Science in 1973 under thetitle "On being sane in insane places."[1] The studyis considered an important and influential criticism ofpsychiatric diagnosis.[2]

Rosenhan's study was done in two parts. The firstpart involved the use of healthy associates or"pseudopatients" (three women and five men) whobriefly simulated auditory hallucinations in anattempt to gain admission to 12 different psychiatrichospitals in five different states in various locationsin the United States. All were admitted anddiagnosed with psychiatric disorders. Afteradmission, the pseudopatients acted normally and told staff that they felt fine and had not experienced any morehallucinations. All were forced to admit to having a mental illness and agree to take antipsychotic drugs as acondition of their release. The average time that the clients spent in the hospital was 19 days. All but one werediagnosed with schizophrenia "in remission" before their release. The second part of his study involved an offendedhospital challenging Rosenhan to send pseudopatients to its facility, whom its staff would then detect. Rosenhanagreed and in the following weeks out of 193 new patients the staff identified 41 as potential pseudopatients, with 19of these receiving suspicion from at least 1 psychiatrist and 1 other staff member. In fact Rosenhan had sent no oneto the hospital.

Rosenhan experiment 106

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

The pseudopatient experimentRosenhan himself and seven mentally healthy associates, called "pseudopatients", attempted to gain admission topsychiatric hospitals by calling for an appointment and feigning auditory hallucinations. The hospital staffs were notinformed of the experiment. The pseudopatients included a psychology graduate student in his twenties, threepsychologists, 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 adifferent sector to avoid invoking any special treatment or scrutiny. Apart from giving false names and employmentdetails, further biographical details were truthfully reported.During their initial psychiatric assessment, they claimed to be hearing voices of the same sex as the patient whichwere often unclear, but which seemed to pronounce the words "empty", "hollow", "thud" and nothing else. Thesewords were chosen as they vaguely suggest some sort of existential crisis and for the lack of any published literaturereferencing them as psychotic symptoms. No other psychiatric symptoms were claimed. If admitted, thepseudopatients were instructed to "act normally", reporting that they felt fine and no longer heard voices. Hospitalrecords obtained after the experiment indicate that all pseudopatients were characterized as friendly and cooperativeby staff.All were admitted, to 12 different psychiatric hospitals across the United States, including rundown and underfundedpublic hospitals in rural areas, urban university-run hospitals with excellent reputations, and one expensive privatehospital. Though presented with identical symptoms, 7 were diagnosed with schizophrenia at public hospitals, andone with manic-depressive psychosis, a more optimistic diagnosis with better clinical outcomes, at the privatehospital. Their stays ranged from 7 to 52 days, and the average was 19 days. All were discharged with a diagnosis ofschizophrenia "in remission", which Rosenhan takes as evidence that mental illness is perceived as an irreversiblecondition 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 thepseudopatients were identified as impostors by the hospital staff, although many of the other psychiatric patientsseemed to be able to correctly identify them as impostors. In the first three hospitalizations, 35 of the total of 118patients expressed a suspicion that the pseudopatients were sane, with some suggesting that the patients wereresearchers or journalists investigating the hospital.Hospital notes indicated that staff interpreted much of the pseudopatients' behavior in terms of mental illness. Forexample, one nurse labeled the note-taking of one pseudopatient as "writing behavior" and considered itpathological. The patients' normal biographies were recast in hospital records along the lines of what was expectedof 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 notever be voluntarily released on short notice. Once admitted and diagnosed, the pseudopatients were not able to obtaintheir release until they agreed with the psychiatrists that they were mentally ill and began taking antipsychoticmedications, which they flushed down the toilet. No staff member noticed that the pseudopatients were flushing theirmedication 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

Rosenhan experiment 107

observed while using the toilet. They reported that though the staff seemed to be well-meaning, they generallyobjectified and dehumanized the patients, often discussing patients at length in their presence as though they werenot there, and avoiding direct interaction with patients except as strictly necessary to perform official duties. Someattendants were prone to verbal and physical abuse of patients when other staff were not present. A group of boredpatients 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 daysand 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 anaffirmation of their view of me." — David Rosenhan in the BBC program "The Trap".[4]

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

Impact and controversyRosenhan published his findings in Science, criticizing the reliability of psychiatric diagnosis and the disempoweringand demeaning nature of patient care experienced by the associates in the study. His article generated an explosion ofcontroversy.Many defended psychiatry, arguing that as psychiatric diagnosis relies largely on the patient's report of theirexperiences, faking their presence no more demonstrates problems with psychiatric diagnosis than lying about othermedical 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 anyhospital vomiting blood, the behavior of the staff would be quite predictable. If they labeled and treated me ashaving a bleeding peptic ulcer, I doubt that I could argue convincingly that medical science does not knowhow to diagnose that condition.[5]

Rosenhan replied that if they continue thinking that you still have an ulcer during x weeks despite having no othersymptoms 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 havemental 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 mentalpatients as possible."[8]

Rosenhan experiment 108

Related experimentsAmerican investigative journalist Nellie Bly feigned symptoms of mental illness to gain admission to a lunaticasylum in 1887 and report on the terrible conditions therein. The results were published as Ten Days in aMad-House.Maurice K. Temerlin split 25 psychiatrists into two groups and had them listen to an actor portraying a character ofnormal mental health. One group was told that the actor "was a very interesting man because he looked neurotic, butactually was quite psychotic" while the other was told nothing. Sixty percent of the former group diagnosedpsychoses, 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 thepatient 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 forthe white clients."[10]

The science writer Lauren Slater may have conducted a very similar experiment for her 2004 book OpeningSkinner's Box.[2] She claims to have presented herself at 9 different psychiatric emergency rooms with auditoryhallucinations, resulting in being diagnosed "almost every time" with psychotic depression. However, whenchallenged 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 healthconditions, and five with no such diagnosis. They were observed by three experts in mental health diagnoses andtheir challenge was to identify the five with mental health problems.[12] The experts correctly diagnosed two of theten patients, misdiagnosed one patient, and incorrectly identified two healthy patients as having mental healthproblems.[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 inInsane 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. ISBN 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 - ppg349-353.

[10] Loring M, Powell B (March 1988). "Gender, race, and DSM-III: a study of the objectivity of psychiatric diagnostic behavior". Journal ofhealth 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.,

Rosenhan experiment 109

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

RationaleIn the test, a rodent is placed on a horizontally oriented, rotating cylinder (rod) suspended above a cage floor, whichis low enough not to injure the animal, but high enough to induce avoidance of fall. Rodents naturally try to stay onthe rotating cylinder, or rotarod, and avoid falling to the ground. The length of time that a given animal stays on thisrotating rod is a measure of their balance, coordination, physical condition, and motor-planning. The speed of therotarod 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 alog floating in the water that rotates with even minimal torques applied by the contestant. Hamster, gerbil, and mouseowners 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 useThe advantage of this test is that it creates a discretely measurable, continuous variable (length of time) that can beused for statistical purposes to quantify the effects of different drugs, conditions, and procedures. This test does notuse subjective judgments of ability, and inter-rater reliability will be virtually perfect. Inter-laboratory reliability willonly be achieved if the various parameters (size of cylinder, speed of cylinder, composition material of surface, andamount of practice/training given the animal) are also replicated.[3] The experiment is also very replicable from labto lab (ibid). Moreover, these parameters may be adjusted variously to optimize the statistical separation of differentconditions. 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 rotarodtest is frequently used in early stages of drug development [5] to screen-out drugs that might later cause subtleimpairments, which might not be detected epidemiologically in a human population for a very long time. The testmay be useful as a sensitive indicator of trauma induced by brain injury to laboratory rats. [6] Alcohol markedlyimpairs mouse performance in the rotarod test.[7] Research using the rotarod test with various chemical agonists andantagonists may help scientists determine which components of neurons mediate the effects of chemicals.[8] Testingof genetic knockout animals may help determine the genes most responsible for maintaining mammalian balance andcoordination.[9] Comparing the performance of different animals with specific brain lesions helps scientists mapwhich structures are critical for maintaining balance.[10]

Rotarod performance test 110

References[1] http:/ / medical. webends. com/ kw/ Rotarod%20Performance%20Test[2][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][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][6] J Neurotrauma. 1994 Apr;11(2):187-96. The rotarod test: an evaluation of its effectiveness in assessing motor deficits following traumaticbrain injury. Hamm RJ, Pike BR, O'Dell DM, Lyeth BG, Jenkins LW.

[7][7] Neurotoxicology. 1981 Dec;2(4):765-87. Comparison of accelerod and rotarod sensitivity in detecting ethanol- and acrylamide-inducedperformance decrement in rats: review of experimental considerations of rotating rod systems. Bogo V, Hill TA, Young RW.

[8][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 thecontrol of nociception, motor behavior and hippocampal synthesis of noradrenaline. Millan MJ, Bervoets K, RivetJM, Widdowson P, Renouard A, Le Marouille-Girardon S, Gobert A.[9][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. anna.minasyan@uta.fi

[10][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 excitotoxiclesion in the mouse. Haelewyn B, Freret T, Pacary E, Schumann-Bard P, Boulouard M, Bernaudin M, Bouët V.

Small-world experiment

The "six degrees of separation" model

The small-world experiment comprised several experimentsconducted by Stanley Milgram and other researchers examining theaverage path length for social networks of people in the United States.The research was groundbreaking in that it suggested that humansociety is a small-world-type network characterized by shortpath-lengths. The experiments are often associated with the phrase "sixdegrees of separation", although Milgram did not use this term himself.

Small-world experiment 111

Historical context of the small-world problemGuglielmo Marconi's conjectures based on his radio work in the early 20th century, which were articulated in his1909 Nobel Prize address,[1] may have inspired Hungarian author Frigyes Karinthy to write a challenge to findanother person to whom he could not be connected through at most five people.[2] This is perhaps the earliestreference 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 Milgramvisited and collaborated in their research. Their unpublished manuscript circulated among academics for over 20years before publication in 1978. It formally articulated the mechanics of social networks, and explored themathematical consequences of these (including the degree of connectedness). The manuscript left many significantquestions about networks unresolved, and one of these was the number of degrees of separation in actual socialnetworks.Milgram took up the challenge on his return from Paris, leading to the experiments reported in "The Small WorldProblem" in May 1967 (charter) issue of the popular magazine Psychology Today, with a more rigorous version ofthe paper appearing in Sociometry two years later. The Psychology Today article generated enormous publicity forthe 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 ideathat the world is becoming increasingly interconnected. Michael Gurevich had conducted seminal work in hisempirical study of the structure of social networks in his MIT doctoral dissertation under Pool. MathematicianManfred Kochen, an Austrian who had been involved in Statist urban design, extrapolated these empirical results ina mathematical manuscript, Contacts and Influences, concluding that, in an American-sized population withoutsocial structure, "it is practically certain that any two individuals can contact one another by means of at least twointermediaries. In a [socially] structured population it is less likely but still seems probable. And perhaps for thewhole world's population, probably only one more bridging individual should be needed." They subsequentlyconstructed Monte Carlo simulations based on Gurevich's data, which recognized that both weak and strongacquaintance 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 setof experiments beginning in 1967 at Harvard University. One of Milgram's most famous works is a study ofobedience and authority, which is widely known as the Milgram Experiment.[3] Milgram's earlier association withPool 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 phenomenonarticulated by the writer Frigyes Karinthy in the 1920s while documenting a widely circulated belief in Budapest thatindividuals were separated by six degrees of social contact. This observation, in turn, was loosely based on theseminal demographic work of the Statists who were so influential in the design of Eastern European cities duringthat 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 ofParis during the early 1950s (Kochen brought Mandelbrot to work at the Institute for Advanced Study and later IBMin the U.S.). This circle of researchers was fascinated by the interconnectedness and "social capital" of socialnetworks.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

Small-world experiment 112

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

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

Basic procedure1. 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 ofa chain of correspondence. These cities were selected because they were thought to represent a great distance inthe United States, both socially and geographically.[2]

2.2. Information packets were initially sent to "randomly" selected individuals in Omaha or Wichita. They includedletters, which detailed the study's purpose, and basic information about a target contact person in Boston. Itadditionally contained a roster on which they could write their own name, as well as business reply cards thatwere pre-addressed to Harvard.

3.3. Upon receiving the invitation to participate, the recipient was asked whether he or she personally knew thecontact person described in the letter. If so, the person was to forward the letter directly to that person. For thepurposes of this study, knowing someone "personally" was defined as knowing them on a first-name basis.

4.4. In the more likely case that the person did not personally know the target, then the person was to think of a friendor relative he knew personally who was more likely to know the target. He was then directed to sign his name onthe roster and forward the packet to that person. A postcard was also mailed to the researchers at Harvard so thatthey could track the chain's progression toward the target.

5.5. When and if the package eventually reached the contact person in Boston, the researchers could examine theroster to count the number of times it had been forwarded from person to person. Additionally, for packages thatnever reached the destination, the incoming postcards helped identify the break point in the chain.

ResultsShortly after the experiments began, letters would begin arriving to the targets and the researchers would receivepostcards from the respondents. Sometimes the packet would arrive to the target in as few as one or two hops, whilesome chains were composed of as many as nine or ten links. However, a significant problem was that often peoplerefused to pass the letter forward, and thus the chain never reached its destination. In one case, 232 of the 296 lettersnever reached the destination.[4]

However, 64 of the letters eventually did reach the target contact. Among these chains, the average path length fellaround five and a half or six. Hence, the researchers concluded that people in the United States are separated byabout six people on average. Although Milgram himself never used the phrase "six degrees of separation", thesefindings 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. Ofthose 24, 16 were given to the target person by the same person Milgram calls "Mr. Jacobs", a clothing merchant. Ofthose 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, thepackage quickly reached a close geographic proximity, but would circle the target almost randomly until it found thetarget's inner circle of friends.[4] This suggests that participants strongly favored geographic characteristics whenchoosing an appropriate next person in the chain.

Small-world experiment 113

CritiquesThere are a number of methodological critiques of the Milgram Experiment, which suggest that the average pathlength 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 theywere recruited through an advertisement that specifically sought for people who considered themselves aswell-connected. Another problem has to do with the attrition rate. If one assumes a constant portion ofnon-response for each person in the chain, longer chains will be under-represented because it is more likely thatthey will encounter an unwilling participant. Hence, Milgram's experiment should underestimate the true averagepath length. Several methods have been suggested to correct these estimates; one uses a variant of survivalanalysis in order to account for the length information of interrupted chains, and thus reduce the bias in theestimation of average degrees of separation.[7]

2.2. One of the key features of Milgram's methodology is that participants are asked to choose the person they knowwho is most likely to know the target individual. But in many cases, the participant may be unsure which of theirfriends is the most likely to know the target. Thus, since the participants of the Milgram experiment do not have atopological map of the social network, they might actually be sending the package further away from the targetrather than sending it along the shortest path. This may create a bias and overestimate the average number of tiesneeded for two random people.

3. A description of heterogeneous social networks still remains an open question. Though much research was notdone for a number of years, in 1998 Duncan Watts and Steven Strogatz published a breakthrough paper in thejournal Nature. Mark Buchanan said, "Their paper touched off a storm of further work across many fields ofscience" (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. Oncethese people are discovered, they remain more "distant" from the vast majority of the world, as they have feweconomic, familial, or social contacts with the world at large; before they are discovered, they are not within anydegree of separation from the rest of the population. However, these populations are invariably tiny, renderingthem of low statistical significance.

In addition to these methodological critiques, conceptual issues are debated. One regards the social relevance ofindirect contact chains of different degrees of separation. Much formal and empirical work focuses on diffusionprocesses, but the literature on the small-world problem also often illustrates the relevance of the research using anexample (similar to Milgram's experiment) of a targeted search in which a starting person tries to obtain some kindof 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 ofseparation are actually used for such directed search, or that such search processes are more efficient compared toother means (e.g., finding information in a directory).[8]

Small-world experiment 114

Influence

The social sciencesThe Tipping Point by Malcolm Gladwell, based on articles originally published in The New Yorker,[9] elaborates the"funneling" concept. Gladwell condenses sociological research which argues that the six-degrees phenomenon isdependent on a few extraordinary people ("connectors") with large networks of contacts and friends: these hubs thenmediate 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 dueto the strongly connected nature of social networks as a whole, removing these hubs from a population usually haslittle effect on the average path length through the graph (Barrett et al., 2005).

Mathematicians and actorsSmaller communities, such as mathematicians and actors, have been found to be densely connected by chains ofpersonal or professional associations. Mathematicians have created the Erdős number to describe their distance fromPaul Erdős based on shared publications. A similar exercise has been carried out for the actor Kevin Bacon and otheractors who appeared in movies together with him — the latter effort informing the game "Six Degrees of KevinBacon". 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 countingtheir Shusaku number, which counts degrees of separation through the games the players have had.

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

Network modelsIn 1998, Duncan J. Watts and Steven Strogatz from Cornell University published the first network model on thesmall-world phenomenon. They showed that networks from both the natural and man-made world, such as the neuralnetwork 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 longestdirect path between any two vertices in the network — from being very long to being very short. The research wasoriginally inspired by Watts' efforts to understand the synchronization of cricket chirps, which show a high degree ofcoordination over long ranges as though the insects are being guided by an invisible conductor. The mathematicalmodel which Watts and Strogatz developed to explain this phenomenon has since been applied in a wide range ofdifferent areas. In Watts' words:[11]

"I think I've been contacted by someone from just about every field outside of English literature. I've hadletters from mathematicians, physicists, biochemists, neurophysiologists, epidemiologists, economists,sociologists; from people in marketing, information systems, civil engineering, and from a business enterprisethat 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 115

remains a canonical case study in the field of complex networks. In network theory, the idea presented in thesmall-world network model has been explored quite extensively. Indeed, several classic results in random graphtheory show that even networks with no real topological structure exhibit the small-world phenomenon, whichmathematically 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 ontonetworks 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 thedevelopment of secure peer-to-peer protocols, novel routing algorithms for the Internet and ad hoc wirelessnetworks, and search algorithms for communication networks of all kinds.

Milgram's experiment in popular cultureSocial networks pervade popular culture in the United States and elsewhere. In particular, the notion of six degreeshas 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 spacethrough the application of social networking concepts. The potential of the small world effect in linking likely butunknown collaborators using social networking was pointed out explicitly in The IRG Solution – hierarchicalincompetence 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][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][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)

Small-world experiment 116

• 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 shadowingSpeech 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 254ms[1] or even 150 ms.[2] This is only the delay duration of a speech syllable. While a person is only asked to repeatwords, they also automatically process their syntax and semantics.[1] Words repeated during shadowing imitate theparlance of the words overheard more than the same words when read aloud by the subject.[3]

Functional imaging finds that the shadowing of nonwords[4] occurs through the dorsal stream that links auditory andmotor representations of speech through a pathway that starts in the superior temporal cortex, goes to the inferiorparietal 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 AndreevnaChistovich 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.

Stanford marshmallow experiment 117

Stanford marshmallow experiment

Marshmallows

The Stanford marshmallow experiment [1] was a study on deferredgratification conducted in 1972 by psychologist Walter Mischel ofStanford University. A marshmallow was offered to each child. If thechild could resist eating the marshmallow, he was promised twoinstead of one. The scientists analyzed how long each child resisted thetemptation of eating the marshmallow, and whether or not doing sowas correlated with future success [2]. The original study at Stanfordhas been cited some 400 times.[3]

Original experiment

OriginsThe experiment has its roots in an earlier one performed on Trinidad, where Mischel noticed that the different ethnicgroups living on the island had contrasting stereotypes of one another, specifically, on the other's perceivedrecklessness, self-control, and ability to have fun. [4] This small (n= 53) study of male and female children aged 7 to9 (35 Negro and 18 East Indian) in a rural Trinidad school involved the children in indicating a choice betweenreceiving a 1c candy immediately, or having a (preferable) 10c candy given to them in one week's time. Mischelreported 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 fatherwas prevalent in the African-descent group (occurring only once in the East Indian group), and this variable showedthe strongest link to delay of gratification, with children from intact families showing superior ability to delay.

Stanford experimentThe purpose of the original study was to understand when the control of deferred gratification, the ability to wait toobtain something that one wants, develops in children. The original experiment took place at the Bing NurserySchool located at Stanford University, using children the age of four to six as subjects. The children were led into aroom, empty of distractions, where a treat of their choice (Oreo cookie, marshmallow, or pretzel stick) was placed ona table, by a chair.[1] The children could eat the marshmallow, the researchers said, but if they waited for fifteenminutes without giving in to the temptation, they would be rewarded with a second marshmallow.[1] Mischelobserved as some would "cover their eyes with their hands or turn around so that they can't see the tray, others startkicking the desk, or tug on their pigtails, or stroke the marshmallow as if it were a tiny stuffed animal", while otherswould 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 whoattempted to delay, one third deferred gratification long enough to get the second marshmallow.[1] Age was a majordeterminant of deferred gratification.

Stanford marshmallow experiment 118

Follow-up studiesIt was the results of the follow-up study that would take place many years later that surprised Mischel. SinceMischel's daughters knew and grew up with many of the original test subjects, through casual conversation, Mischeldiscovered there existed an unexpected correlation between the results of the marshmallow test, and the success ofthe children many years later.[2]

The first follow-up study, in 1988, showed that "preschool children who delayed gratification longer in theself-imposed delay paradigm, were described more than 10 years later by their parents as adolescents who weresignificantly more competent".A second follow-up study, in 1990, showed that the ability to delay gratification also correlated with higher SATscores.[2]

A 2006 paper to which Mischel contributed reports a similar experiment, this time relating ability to delay in order toreceive 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 thenumber 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, mayshare a common mechanism with, or serve as a precursor for, long-term ability to inhibit attentional andbehavioral responses, as reflected years later in performance on the go/no-go task. Moreover, becauseinefficient performance in the go/no-go task has been well documented as being associated withimmature development of fronto-striatal and related circuitry, the findings suggest that temptation focusin the delay-of-gratification task at age 4 may already be a marker of the subsequent development ofindividual 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 inhigh 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 groupwas given a broken promise before the marshmallow test was conducted (the unreliable tester group), and the secondgroup had a fulfilled promise before their marshmallow test (the reliable tester group). The reliable tester groupwaited 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 fromPreschool Delay of Gratification: Identifying Diagnostic Conditions" (http:/ / www. webcitation. org/ 62C0yfhcJ). Developmental Psychology26 (6): 978–986. Archived from the original (http:/ / duende. uoregon. edu. / ~hsu/ blogfiles/ Shoda,Mischel,& Peake(1990). pdf) on October4, 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.

Stanford marshmallow experiment 119

. 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 40years 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) onOctober 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 experimentThe 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 researchersled by psychology professor Philip Zimbardo.[1] It was funded by the US Office of Naval Research[2] and was ofinterest to both the US Navy and Marine Corps as an investigation into the causes of conflict between militaryguards and prisoners.Twenty-four male students out of 75 were selected to take on randomly assigned roles of prisoners and guards in amock prison situated in the basement of the Stanford psychology building. The participants adapted to their roleswell beyond Zimbardo's expectations, as the guards enforced authoritarian measures and ultimately subjected someof the prisoners to psychological torture. Many of the prisoners passively accepted psychological abuse and, at therequest of the guards, readily harassed other prisoners who attempted to prevent it. The experiment even affectedZimbardo himself, who, in his role as the superintendent, permitted the abuse to continue. Two of the prisoners quitthe experiment early and the entire experiment was abruptly stopped after only six days. Certain portions of theexperiment were filmed and excerpts of footage are publicly available.

Goals and methodsZimbardo and his team aimed to test the hypothesis that the inherent personality traits of prisoners and guards are thechief cause of abusive behavior in prison. Participants were recruited and told they would participate in a two-weekprison simulation. Out of 70 respondents, Zimbardo and his team selected the 24 males whom they deemed to be themost psychologically stable and healthy. These participants were predominantly white and middle-class.[3] Thegroup was intentionally selected to exclude those with criminal background, psychological impairments or medicalproblems. They all agreed to participate in a 7 to 14 day period and received $15 per day (roughly equivalent to $85in 2011).The experiment was conducted in the basement of Jordan Hall (Stanford's psychology building). Twelve of the 24participants were assigned the role of prisoner (9 plus 3 alternates), while the other twelve were assigned the role ofguard (also 9 plus 3 alternates). Zimbardo took on the role of the superintendent, and an undergraduate researchassistant 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 instructedthem 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 ofarbitrariness that their life is totally controlled by us, by the system, you, me, and they'll have no privacy... We'regoing 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]

Stanford prison experiment 120

The researchers provided the guards with wooden batons in order to establish their status,[5] clothing similar to thatof an actual prison guard (khaki shirt and pants from a local military surplus store), and mirrored sunglasses toprevent eye contact. Prisoners wore uncomfortable ill-fitting smocks and stocking caps, as well as a chain aroundone ankle. Guards were instructed to call prisoners by their assigned numbers, sewn on their uniforms, instead of byname.The prisoners were arrested at their homes and charged with armed robbery. The local Palo Alto police departmentassisted Zimbardo with the arrests and conducted full booking procedures on the prisoners, which includedfingerprinting and taking mug shots. They were transported to the mock prison from the police station, where theywere 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 tostay in their cells all day and night until the end of the study. The guards worked in teams of three for eight-hourshifts. The guards did not have to stay on site after their shift.

ResultsAfter a relatively uneventful first day, on the second day the prisoners in Cell 1 blockaded their cell door with theirbeds and took off their stocking caps, refusing to come out or follow the guards' instructions. Guards from othershifts volunteered to work extra hours in order to assist in subduing the revolt, and subsequently attacked theprisoners with fire extinguishers without being supervised by the research staff. Finding that handling nine cell mateswith only three guards per shift was challenging, one of the guards suggested that they use psychological tactics tocontrol them. They set up a "privilege cell" in which prisoners who were not involved in the riot were treated withspecial rewards, such as higher quality meals. The "privileged" inmates chose not to eat the meal in order to stayuniform 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 whilebefore 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 newidentity. Guards soon used these prisoner counts to harass the prisoners, using physical punishment such asprotracted 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, sothe guards would punish prisoners by removing their mattresses, leaving them to sleep on concrete. Some prisonerswere forced to be naked as a method of degradation. Several guards became increasingly cruel as the experimentcontinued; 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 theyheard 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. Zimbardohimself waited in the basement, in case the released prisoner showed up, and planned to tell him that the experimenthad 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 wouldaccept "parole" even if it would mean forfeiting their pay, they did not quit when their parole applications were alldenied. Zimbardo argued they had no reason for continued participation in the experiment after having lost allmonetary 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

Stanford prison experiment 121

repeatedly punch on the door while shouting at 416."[7] The guards stated that he would be released from solitaryconfinement only if the prisoners gave up their blankets and slept on their bare mattresses, which all but one refusedto do.Zimbardo aborted the experiment early when Christina Maslach, a graduate student he was then dating (and latermarried), 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 whoquestioned its morality. After only six days of a planned two weeks' duration, the Stanford Prison experiment wasdiscontinued.[8]

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

CriticismThe guards and prisoners adapted to their roles more than they were expected, stepping beyond the boundaries ofwhat had been predicted, leading to dangerous and psychologically damaging situations. One-third of the guardswere judged to have exhibited "genuine sadistic tendencies", while many prisoners were emotionally traumatized, astwo of them had to be removed from the experiment early. After Maslach, a graduate student in psychology whomhe was dating,[9] confronted him and forced him to realize that he had been passively allowing unethical acts to beperformed under his supervision, Zimbardo concluded that both prisoners and guards had become grossly absorbedin their roles and realized that he had likewise become as grossly absorbed in his own, and he terminated theexperiment.[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. TomPeters and Robert H. Waterman, Jr. wrote in 1981 that the Milgram experiment and the Stanford prison experimentwere frightening in their implications about the danger which lurks in the darker side of human nature.[11]

Peer-reviewBecause of the structure of the experiment, Zimbardo found it impossible to keep traditional scientific controls inplace. He was unable to remain a neutral observer, since he influenced the direction of the experiment as the prison'ssuperintendent. Conclusions and observations drawn by the experimenters were largely subjective and anecdotal, andthe 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 thatthe personality of an individual does affect behavior when imprisoned, using historical examples from the Naziconcentration camps. This ran counter to the study's conclusion that the prison situation itself controls theindividual's behavior. Fromm also argued that the amount of sadism in the "normal" subjects could not bedetermined with the methods employed to screen them.[12]

Stanford prison experiment 122

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

Other criticismsAdditionally, the study has been criticized on the basis of ecological validity. Many of the conditions imposed in theexperiment were arbitrary and may not have correlated with actual prison conditions, including blindfoldingincoming prisoners, not allowing them to wear underwear, not allowing them to look out of windows and notallowing them to use their names. Zimbardo argued that prison is a confusing and dehumanizing experience and thatit was necessary to enact these procedures to put the prisoners in the proper frame of mind; however, he concededthat it was difficult to know how similar the effects were to an actual prison, and that the experiment's methodswould 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 toemulate a character from the Paul Newman film Cool Hand Luke. He further intensified his actions because he wasnicknamed "John Wayne", even though he was trying to mimic actor Strother Martin, who had played the role of thesadistic 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 WesternKentucky University recruited students for a study using an advertisement similar to the one used in the StanfordPrison Experiment, with some ads saying "a psychological study of prison life", and some without the words "prisonlife". It was found that students volunteering for a prison life study possessed dispositions toward abusivebehavior.[14]

Comparisons to Abu GhraibWhen the Abu Ghraib military prisoner torture and abuse scandal was publicized in March of 2004, many observerswere immediately struck by its many similarities to the Stanford Prison experiment. Chief among them wasZimbardo himself, who paid close attention to the details of the story. He was dismayed by official military andgovernment representatives' shifting the blame for the torture and abuses in the Abu Ghraib American military prisonon to "a few bad apples" rather than acknowledging it as possibly systemic problems of a formally establishedmilitary incarceration system.Eventually, Zimbardo became involved with the defense team of lawyers representing one of the Abu Ghraib prisonguards, 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 sentencefor Frederick in October 2004.Zimbardo drew from his participation in the Frederick case to write the book The Lucifer Effect: Understanding HowGood People Turn Evil, published by Random House in 2007, which deals with the striking similarities between hisown Stanford Prison Experiment and the Abu Ghraib abuses.[7]

Stanford prison experiment 123

Similar studies

BBC prison studyAlex 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 Experimentconducted with the assistance of the BBC, which broadcast events in the study in a documentary series called TheExperiment. 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 leadingacademic journals such as British Journal of Social Psychology, Journal of Applied Psychology, Social PsychologyQuarterly and "Personality and Social Psychology Review". The BBC Prison Study is now taught as a core study onthe 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 onthe generality of his conclusions. Specifically, it questions the notion that people slip mindlessly into role and theidea that the dynamics of evil are in any way banal. Their research also points to the importance of leadership in theemergence of tyranny of the form displayed by Zimbardo when briefing guards in the Stanford experiment.[16][17]

Experiments in the United StatesThe 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 havegone on record to confirm the events.[19]

In April 2007, it was reported that high school students in Waxahachie, Texas, who were participating in arole-playing exercise, fell into a similar abusive pattern of behavior as exhibited in the original Stanfordexperiment.[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 andproduced by Ken Musen.[21]

• In 1977, Italian director Carlo Tuzii adapted the experiment to an Italian environment. Italian students made afilm 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 in2001 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.

Stanford prison experiment 124

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][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.

Stanford prison experiment 125

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 forthe 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)

Tail suspension test 126

Tail suspension test

Animal testing

Main articlesAnimal testing

Alternatives to animal testingTesting on: invertebrates

frogs · primatesrabbits · rodents

Animal testing regulationsHistory of animal testing

History of model organismsIACUC

Laboratory animal sourcesPain and suffering in lab animals

Testing cosmetics on animalsToxicology testing

Vivisection

IssuesBiomedical Research

Animal rights/Animal welfareAnimals (Scientific Procedures)

Great ape research banInternational trade in primates

Controversial experimentsBritches · Brown Dog affair

Cambridge University primatesPit of despair

Silver Spring monkeysUnnecessary Fuss

CompaniesJackson Laboratory

Charles River Laboratories, Inc.Covance · Harlan

Huntingdon Life SciencesUK lab animal suppliersNafovanny · Shamrock

Tail suspension test 127

Groups/campaignsAALAS · AAAS · ALF

Americans for Medical ProgressBoyd Group · BUAV

Dr Hadwen TrustFoundation for Biomedical

Research · FRAMENational Anti-Vivisection Society

PETA · Physicians Committeefor Responsible MedicinePrimate Freedom Project

Pro-TestSPEAK · SHAC

Speaking of ResearchUnderstanding Animal Research

Writers/activistsTipu Aziz · Michael Balls

Neal Barnard · Colin BlakemoreSimon Festing · Gill Langley

Ingrid Newkirk · Bernard RollinJerry Vlasak · Syed Ziaur Rahman

CategoriesAnimal testing · Animal rights

Animal welfare

Related templatesTemplate:Animal rights

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

References

The Third Wave 128

The Third WaveThe Third Wave was an experiment to demonstrate that even democratic societies are not immune to the appeal offascism.[1][2] 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 atCubberley High School in Palo Alto, California, during the first week of April 1967.timing Jones, unable to explain tohis students how the German population could claim ignorance of the extermination of the Jewish people, decided toshow them instead.[3] Jones started a movement called "The Third Wave" and told his students that the movementaimed to eliminate democracy.[1] The idea that democracy emphasizes individuality was considered as a drawback ofdemocracy, 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 experiment was not well documented at the time. Of contemporary sources, the experiment is only mentioned inthe Cubberley High School student newspaper The Cubberley Catamount. It is only briefly mentioned in twoissues,[4][5] and one more issue of the paper has a longer article about this experiment at its conclusion.[1] Joneshimself wrote a detailed account of the experiment some nine years afterwards[3] and more articles about theexperiment followed, including some interviews with Jones and the original students.[2]

ChronologyJones writes that he started the first day of the experiment with simple things like proper seating, drilling the studentsuntil they were able to move from outside the classroom to their seats and take the proper seating position in lessthan 30 seconds without making a sound.[3] He then proceeded to enforce strict classroom discipline by emerging asan 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 besitting at attention before the second bell, had to stand up to ask or answer questions and had to do it in three wordsor 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 andcommunity.[3] Jones named the movement "The Third Wave", mis-stating the mythical belief that the third in aseries of ocean waves is last and largest (which comes from a traditional sailors' saying that the ninth wave is thelargest, as recited in Tennyson's The Coming of Arthur).[3] Jones made up a salute resembling that of the Naziregime[1] and ordered class members to salute each other even outside the class. They all complied with thiscommand.[3]

The experiment took on a life of its own, with students from all over the school joining in: on the third day the classexpanded from initial 30 students to 43 attendees. All of the students showed drastic improvement in their academicskills and tremendous motivation. All of the students were issued a member card and each of them received a specialassignment (like designing a Third Wave Banner, stopping non-members from entering the class, etc.). Jonesinstructed the students on how to initiate new members, and by the end of the day the movement had over 200participants.[3] Jones was surprised that some of the students started reporting to him when other members of themovement 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 outof his control. The students became increasingly involved in the project and their discipline and loyalty to the projectwas outstanding. He announced to the participants that this movement was a part of a nationwide movement and thaton the next day a presidential candidate of the movement would publicly announce existence of the movement. Jonesordered 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

The Third Wave 129

a sense of superiority that German citizens had in the period of Nazi Germany. He then played them a film about theNazi 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 thereason for his termination, nor was it denied as a reason.[6]

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

In popular cultureA full account of the experiment was given by Ron Jones in the 1980 edition of “The Next Whole Earth Catalog” onpp. 374–377.The events of the experiment were adapted into a 1981 TV special The Wave and a young-adult novelization byTodd Strasser, under the pen name Morton Rhue. The 2008 German film Die Welle transferred the experiment to amodern-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 interviewswith 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.

NotesIn,[4] which was published on Friday April 7, reports of "strange happenings in Mr. Jones' [...] classes" are mentioned without further detail,

which confirms that the movement was active, but not yet finished in the week starting on April 3, 1967. In,[1] 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] The Catamount, Vol 11., No 14., page 3 (http:/ / www. cubberleycatamount. com/ Content/ 66-67/ Catamount Pages/ V11No14/ )[2] Article with participants recollection (http:/ / www. ronjoneswriter. com/ wave. html)[3] Ron Jones's 2-part essay about The Third Wave (Internet Archive)[4] The Catamount, Vol 11., No 13., page 2 (http:/ / www. cubberleycatamount. com/ Content/ 66-67/ Catamount Pages/ V11No13/ )[5] The Catamount, Vol 12., No 6., page 6 (http:/ / www. cubberleycatamount. com/ Content/ 67-68/ Catamount Pages/ V12No6/ )[6] Sam, Whiting. "'Wave' of lingering lessons." San Francisco Chronicle 30 Jan. 2010: E1. Newspaper Source Plus. Web. 19 Sept. 2012.[7] 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/ ). LibertasFilm Magazine. . Retrieved May 12, 2011.

[9] Wings Cultural Society (http:/ / www. ourwingss. blogspot. in/ )

The Third Wave 130

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 studentnewspaper 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.

The Three Christs of Ypsilanti 131

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)

The Three Christs of Ypsilanti (1964) is a book-length psychiatric case study by Milton Rokeach, concerning hisexperiment 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 eachbelieved himself to be Jesus Christ.

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

EditionsThe Three Christs of Ypsilanti was first published in 1964. Rokeach came to think that his research had beenmanipulative and unethical, and he offered an apology in the afterword of the 1984 edition of the book: "I really hadno right, even in the name of science, to play God and interfere round the clock with their daily lives."[2] The bookwas recently re-published by New York Review of Books in 2011.[1]

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 132

Tone variator

Tone variator by Max Kohl, Chemnitz,Germany

German psychologist William Stern invented the tone variator in 1897 to studyhuman sensitivity to changes in pitch, going beyond the traditionalpsychophysical research of studying the sensitivity to differences in discretetones. The instrument consists of an adjustable brass resonator, which issupplied with a constant flow of air across the opening at the top. Turning agraduated cam on the front of the apparatus raises or lowers a piston in thebottom of the resonator, changing the volume of its interior, thus altering thesounded pitch over a continuous range.

The spiral-shaped cam is such that equal angles of rotation approximatelycorrespond to equal changes in frequency. A dial on the front of the camindicates the current resonance frequency and musical tone of the instrument.Subsequent improvements to the device include the addition by G. M. Whippleof a gasometer, in order to regulate the incoming air supply. A version of thedevice was also produced in which the bottom of the resonator was notdisplaced by a spiral, but by rack and pinion (see figure); in these, aneccentrically-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 inthe "apperception of change" began a "decisive metamorphosis" in hisunderstanding:

The issue [apperception of change] was raised by a psycho-physicalproposition: I wanted to discover the 'sensitivity,' not as Fechner and hissuccessors, for two barely distinguishable constant stimuli, but for thecontinuous 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 'transitionfeelings,' etc. Soon, however, the sphere of my inquiry widened in the direction of descriptive and humanisticproblems.

—— Stern, W. (1930). Autobiographical Essay in A History of Psychology in Autobiography, Murchinson,Carl (ed.) Vol. 1. Worchester Mass: Clarke University Press.

Tone variator 133

External articles and further reading

Tone variator with rack and piniondesign.

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: ClarkeUniversity Press.

• Rand Evans, "The Just Noticeable Difference: Psychophysicalinstrumentation and the determination of sensory thresholds". Proceedings ofthe Eleventh International Scientific Instrument Symposium, BolognaUniversity, Italy, 9–14 September 1991.

• Titchener, "Experimental Psychology, a Manual of Experimental Practice:Volume II", Quantitative Experiments, Part II. Instructor’s Manual. NewYork: MacMillan. p. 139.

• G. M. Whipple, "An analytic study of the memory image and the process ofjudgment in the discrimination of clangs and tones". American Journal ofPsychology, vol. 12, pp. 409–457; vol. 13, pp. 219–268.

• Guy Montrose Whipple, " Studies in pitch discrimination [3]". AmericanJournal of Psychology, Volume 14, pages 289–309, 1903

• RF Wyatt, "A New Instrument for Measuring Pitch Discrimination". TheAmerican journal of psychology, Volume 48, Issue 2, 1936. Pg 335. ISSN0002-9556

• Beryl F. Love and Margaret K. Dawson, " The Variation in Sound Intensity of Resonators and Organ Pipes withBlowing Pressure [4]". 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] http:/ / www. psych. utoronto. ca/ museum/ sternv. htm[2] http:/ / www. sil. si. edu/ digitalcollections/ trade-literature/ scientific-instruments/ files/ 51634/[3] http:/ / www. aruffo. com/ eartraining/ research/ articles/ whipple03. htm[4] http:/ / prola. aps. org/ abstract/ PR/ v14/ i1/ p49_1[5] http:/ / www. design. fh-potsdam. de/ projects/ vlop01/ 02_instruments/ kehr_sternVariator/ index. html[6] http:/ / www. phys. cwru. edu/ ccpi/ Tone_variator. html[7] http:/ / www. scienceandsociety. co. uk/ results. asp?image=10324862& wwwflag=2& imagepos=3

Ulcers in Executive Monkeys 134

Ulcers in Executive MonkeysUlcers in Executive Monkeys was a study into the effects of stress, published in 1958 in Scientific American byJoseph V. Brady[1].

Method of the experimentIn 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. Thisstudy 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, whichcould 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.

ResultsAfter 23 days of a 6 hours on, 6 hours off schedule to the electric shocks, the executive monkey died. Brady thentried various schedules, but no monkeys died from this. He then returned to the original 6 on, 6 off, and tested thestomachs 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 digestivehormones. This was a parasympathetic rebound associated with the Hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, which leadthe 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 theulcers were a symptom of the excessive stress induced by having control. Hans Selye's General AdaptationSyndrome 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) 135

Vignette (psychology)A vignette in psychological and sociological experiments presents a hypothetical situation, to which researchparticipants 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 predictorvariables in order to dissect the effects of the variables on dependent variables. For example, to study normativejudgments of family status, "there might be 10 levels of income; 50 head-of-housedhold occupations,and 50occupations for spouses; two races, white and black; and ten levels of family size"[2]. Since this approach can lead tohuge universes of stimuli - half a million in the example - Rossi proposed drawing small random samples from theuniverse of stimuli for presentation to individual respondents, and pooling judgments by multiple respondents inorder to sample the universe adequately. Main effects of predictor variables then can be assessed, though not allinteractive effects[3].Vignettes in the form of sentences describing actions have been used extensively to estimate impression formationequations in research related to affect control theory[4]. In this case, different respondents are presented with eachsentence, and some are asked to rate how the actor seems during the event, others rate the object of action, and otherrespondents rate how the overall action makes the behavior seem. Subgroups of respondents receive different sets ofevent 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 throughobservation or classical experiments. However, an obvious disadvantage of this method is that reading a vignette isdifferent 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

Virtual reality cue reactivity 136

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

Use in addictionStudies have indicated that cue exposure in patients is closely related to increases in physiological responses. Inaddition, situational cues are also a leading cause in triggering relapse. People suffering from addiction have atendency to attribute their addiction to specific scenarios or events.[2] For example, a smoker might have a habit ofonly smoking on his porch. Consequently, whenever he is near or around his porch, he connects it to smoking, and acraving is initiated by the mere proximity. This is an example of the classical conditioning theory, which describeshow 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 mostdetrimental cue exposure settings possible. The idea being that if patients can learn to deny their cravings in acontrolled environment, denial in a real world environment will be easier.[3] Virtual reality helps to emulate a nearlifelike situation, complete with sights, sounds, smells, and movement.[1]

How it worksIn order to create a lifelike environment, actors are filmed on a green screen doing many various activities such assmoking cigarettes, dancing, drinking alcohol, doing drugs, and other provocative actions. The actors are thenintegrated into a three-dimensional background, giving the impression that they are in a real environment. Virtualreality (VR) technology allows a user to be immersed in a computer-simulated environment by engaging the sensesof a human body. As of now, visual and auditory are the two most common senses appealed to when creating a VRenvironment—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.

Virtual reality cue reactivity 137

Visual senses

A head mounted display (HMD) being used at NASA.

Arguably the most important facet inmaking a virtual environment seem real isan appeal to sight. A head-mounted display(HMD) is placed in front of the eyes of apatient like a pair of sunglasses, enabling forcomplete visual attention. A virtualenvironment is then displayed. A motionsensor inside the HMD tracks movement ofthe patient's head. If the patient tilts, or turnshis head to view another part of the room,the environment adjusts accordingly. Thisallows for a more realistic experience bylimiting restrictions of the head.[3]

Auditory senses

A headset is placed around the ears of apatient that allows for sound to be heard.Generally, full surround-sound is desirableas it gives the patient a sense of space. Forexample, if a virtual person standing in frontof the patient was speaking, the voice would be clear and audible. However, if a virtual person was standing to theleft or right of the patient, the sound would be much quieter and muffled. Surround sound aids in giving a lifelikefeeling to the VR environment.[3]

Olfactory sensesOlfactory cues are presented by a computer-controlled device that releases scents in accordance with a patient'svirtual environment. The device has multiple chambers with different scents in each, and uses an air compressor toblow specific scents into a patient's testing area. For example, if the patient were to approach a table with marijuanaon 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 realisticvirtual environment.[1]

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

Virtual reality cue reactivity 138

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

Cue reactivityPresentation 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 actualparty—thus, the instructional process is limited.[4]

Actor-based simulationAnother means of establishing a realistic situation is through actor-based simulation. Actors are hired, and stages arebuilt to simulate what an actual situation might be like. Patients are able to interact with the actors in a realisticmanner. While extremely lifelike and effective, efficiency is a major disadvantage. The actors are subject toavailability, and must be paid for their services. Furthermore, stages are limited to constructed scenes that are noteasy to change. Though more effective than standard presentation cue response, actor-based simulation is stilllimited.[1]

Virtual reality technologyVirtual reality cue reactivity, though still in an early stage of development, is aimed at becoming a much moreefficient version of an actor-based simulation.[5] The goal is to produce a system that will virtually simulate a givenscenario while still allowing a patient to interact with the surroundings. The advantages include increasedflexibility—an operator has the ability to produce virtually any scenario needed—as well as cheaper running costsbecause 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][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.

Water-level task 139

Water-level taskThe water-level task is an experiment in developmental and cognitive psychology[1][2][3][4][5] developed by JeanPiaget.[6][7]

The experiment attempts to assess the subject's reasoning ability in spatial relations. To do so the subject is shownpictures depicting various shaped bottles with a water level marked, then shown pictures of the bottles tilted ondifferent 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][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][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][7] "Can Spatial Training Erase the Gender Differences on the Water-Level Task?" doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1996.tb00321.x

Web-based experimentsA 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 arange of other disciplines use web-based experiments. Within Psychology most web-based experiments areconducted in the areas of Cognitive and Social Psychology[1][2]. This form of experimental setup has becomeincreasingly popular because researchers can cheaply collect large amounts of data from a wide range of locationsand people. A web-based experiment is a type of online research method.

PsychologyWeb experiments have been used to validate results from laboratory research and field research and to conduct newexperiments that are only feasible if done online.[3] Further, the materials created for web experiments can be used ina traditional laboratory setting if later desired.Interdisciplinary research using web experiments is rising. For example, a number of psychology and law researchershave used the web to collect data. Lora Levett and Margaret Bull Kovera examined whether opposing expertwitnesses are effective in educating jurors about unreliable expert evidence.[4] Rather than sensitizing jurors to flawsin the other expert's testimony, the researchers found that jurors became more skeptical of all expert testimony. Inher 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 makingtheir 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 acriminal 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

Web-based experiments 140

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

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

CriticismsSome researchers have expressed concern that Web-based experiments have weaker experimental controls comparedto laboratory-based ones. For instance, it may be difficult to be confident that the subjects characteristics are whatthey 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 of Internet-based experiments. In A. Joinson, K. McKenna, T. 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 true experiments on the Web. In S. Gosling & J. Johnson, Advanced Internet Methods in the

Behavioral Sciences. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.[3] Ulf-Dietrich Reips, Standards for Internet-Based Experimenting, 49 Experim. Psych. 243 (2002), available at http:/ / www. psychologie.

unizh. ch/ sowi/ reips/ papers/ exppsy/ ExPsyReipsReprint. pdf.[4] Levett & Kovera, The Effectiveness of Opposing Expert Witnesses for Educating Jurors about Unreliable Expert Evidence, 32 L. & Hum.

Behav. 363 (2008), available at http:/ / www. ncbi. nlm. nih. gov/ pubmed/ 17940854.[5] Virginia vs. McNamara, https:/ / its. law. nyu. edu/ webexp/ namara001/[6] http:/ / www. musicalmoods. org/[7] http:/ / wexlist. net[8] http:/ / wextor. org[9] Ben Greiner,An Online Recruitment System for Economic Experiments, http:/ / ockenfels. uni-koeln. de/ download/ papers/ orsee_billing. pdf[10] http:/ / www. newscientist. com/ blog/ shortsharpscience/ 2007/ 03/ virtual-labs-is-there-wisdom-in-crowd. html[11] http:/ / www. apa. org/ monitor/ apr00/ research. html[12][12] Reips, U.-D. (2002). Standards for Internet-based experimenting. Experimental Psychology, 49 (4), 243-256.

External links• Reips and Lengler discusses experiences (http:/ / homepage. mac. com/ maculfy/ filechute/ BSC515. pdf)• WEXTOR (http:/ / wextor. org) and Webexp (http:/ / www. webexp. info/ ), software for creating web-based

experiments• Tutorial (http:/ / usir. salford. ac. uk/ 12998/ 1/

Public_Participation_in_Acoustics_Research_through_new_Technology_USIR. pdf) on public engagementthrough audio web experiments

• faceresearch.org/ (http:/ / faceresearch. org/ )

Wike's law of low odd primes 141

Wike's law of low odd primesWike'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 unbalancedand partially confounded" (Wike, 1973, pp. 192–193).This law was stated by Edwin Wike in a humorous article in which he also admits that the association of his namewith 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 studyin which researchers investigated the effects on sexual satisfaction of water beds. The fictitious researchers randomlyassigned couples to three groups: those having sex on a conventional bed, those having sex on a water bed, and thosehaving sex on a water bed having also taken a sea sickness pill. Wike pointed out that any differences in sexualsatisfaction among the three groups could be due to the water bed or to the sea sickness pill. It requires a fourthgroup, couples taking the pill and using a conventional bed, to balance the design and to allow the researchers toattribute 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). "Water beds and sexual satisfaction: Wike’s law of low odd primes (WLLOP)". Psychological

Reports, 33, 192–194.

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

SynopsisA "Truth Wizard" is a person identified in the Wizards Project, who can identify deception with exceptionalaccuracy 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 asTruth Wizards after testing 20,000 people (about 0.25% of the tested population)[3] from all walks of life, includingthe 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, andthat's without any specialized training."[4]

Dr. Maureen O'Sullivan from the University of San Francisco says, "Our wizards are extraordinarily attuned todetecting the nuances of facial expressions, body language and ways of talking and thinking. Some of them canobserve 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

Wizards Project 142

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 thesort 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 thatpurpose, based on data collected by Diogenes' collaborations with the truth wizards.

ControversiesPsychologists Charles F. Bond and Ahmet Uysal from the Texas Christian University criticized the methodologyused by Ekman and O'Sullivan and suspected the performance of the reported Truth Wizards to be due to chance (atype 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 protocoland found two people to be exceptionally fast and accurate at lie detection out of 112 law enforcement officers and122 undergraduate students, a result consistent with Ekman and O'Sullivan's [10]. Both experts at lie detection werefemale Native American BIA correctional officers.Dr. Maureen O'Sullivan responded to Dr. Charles F. Bond in "Unicorns or Tiger Woods: are lie detection expertsmyths or rarities? A response to on lie detection 'wizards' by Bond and Uysal" [11]. They critiqued a specific chapterwhich discusses the initial stages for a research program under way. They commented on two different issues inparticular. Firstly, the scores of any "Truth Wizard" may have been a coincidence and secondly, the procedures usedfor testing does not meet the standards of classical psychometric class theory.[12] Drs. Paul Ekman, Mark Frank andMaureen O'Sullivan also published "Reply scoring and reporting: A response to Bond (2008)" [13]

In popular cultureEkman's work is the inspiration for the Fox TV series Lie to Me (2009–2011). 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 alsomaintains a website [16]. She has been blogging for over seven years and writes about hot topics in the news. Sheshares her thoughts about what makes her suspect a liar.

References[1] (http:/ / www. eurekalert. org/ pub_releases/ 2004-10/ ama-lad100804. php)[2] Granhag, Pär; Strömwall, Leid (2004). The Detection of Deception in Forensic Contexts (http:/ / books. google. ca/

books?id=SF7zaHHkePUC). Cambridge University Press. p. 269. ISBN 0-521-54157-3. .[3] Camilleri, J. (January 21, 2009). "Truth Wizard knows when you've been lying" (http:/ / jcamillieri. files. wordpress. com/ 2009/ 01/

img0021. jpg). Chicago Sun-Times. .[4] The Face Never Lies (http:/ / www. onthemedia. org/ transcripts/ 2009/ 01/ 23/ 08)[5] Lying and deceit – The Wizards Project (http:/ / www. eurekalert. org/ pub_releases/ 2004-10/ ama-lad100804. php)[6] Bond, Charles F & Uysal, Ahmet. (2007). On lie detection "wizards" (http:/ / www. springerlink. com/ content/ u3051220n573124w/ fulltext.

html). Law and human behavior, 31.[7] O'Sullivan, Maureen. (2007). Unicorns or Tiger Woods: are lie detection experts myths or rarities? A response to on lie detection "wizards"

by Bond and Uysal (http:/ / www. springerlink. com/ content/ 458t088h8673210v/ fulltext. html). Law and human behavior, 31.[8] Bond, C. F. (2008), Commentary a few can catch a liar, sometimes: Comments on Ekman and O'Sullivan (1991), as well as Ekman,

O'Sullivan, and Frank (1999) (http:/ / onlinelibrary. wiley. com/ doi/ 10. 1002/ acp. 1475/ abstract). Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22:1298–1300.

[9] Ekman, P., O'Sullivan, M. and Frank, M. (2008), Reply scoring and reporting: A response to bond (2008) (http:/ / onlinelibrary. wiley. com/doi/ 10. 1002/ acp. 1474/ abstract). Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22: 1315–1317.

[10] Bond, Gary D. (2008). Deception detection expertise (http:/ / www. springerlink. com/ content/ 3851143983032195/ fulltext. html). Law andhuman behavior, 32.

[11] O'Sullivan, Maureen. (2007). (http:/ / www. jstor. org/ pss/ 4499519). Law and human behavior, 31.[12] O'Sullivan, Maureen. (2007). (http:/ / www. jstor. org/ pss/ 4499519). Law and human behavior, 31.

Wizards Project 143

[13] Paul Ekman, Maureen O'Sullivan, Mark Frank. (http:/ / onlinelibrary. wiley. com/ doi/ 10. 1002/ acp. 1474/ abstract). Applied CognitivePsychology.

[14][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 anddeceit – 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/ )

Article Sources and Contributors 144

Article Sources and ContributorsAir-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, AndySmith, 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, Wikialf, 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, 4anonymous 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 anonymousedits

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

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, JohnBroughton, 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 derHoorn, Waveguy, Wiki Raja, Wikidudeman, Xanzzibar, Zundark, 112 ,زرشک 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, R.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 ,אנדר-ויק 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,

Article Sources and Contributors 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, PeterS., 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 userllkd8wtiuawfhiuweuhncu3tr, 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, DamianYerrick, 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, MCDupree, 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 ConstantineHassan 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 deMimsy-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, VanishedUser 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, 959anonymous 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, 1anonymous 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, O^O, PhnomPencil,RDBrown, Rbogle, Richard75, Riffraffselbow, Rockpocket, Samuel Blanning, Seresin, ShakingSpirit, Slffea, SlimVirgin, Srnec, The Anome, Thespian, Trovatore, Tryptofish, TungstenCarbideXI, Vanbeek.j, William Avery, 35 ,حامد صوفی 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, 28anonymous edits

Pseudoword  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=511970534  Contributors: Allens, Bjuteau, Cnilep, Damian Yerrick, Dan Pelleg, Junes, Kwamikagami, Magioladitis, Mattis,NickelShoe, Purodha, Sausagerooster, The Wiki ghost, Tropylium, True, 4 anonymous edits

Article Sources and Contributors 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, O^O, 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, DMarcescu, 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 atkms, 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, DeweyFinn, 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, PhilBoswell, Piet Delport, Piotrus, Plrk, Prokhorovka, Pwt898, RP88, Raymond Pasco, Redeagle688, RiverRat, Rklawton, Roscelese, Saccerzd, Sardanaphalus, Seattlenow, Skibitzky, Some jerk onthe 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

Article Sources and Contributors 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, LovaFalk, 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 anonymous edits

Web-based experiments  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=495341000  Contributors: Acs272, Cander0000, Casey1632, Derek 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 ContributorsImage:Asch experiment.png  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Asch_experiment.png  License: GNU Free Documentation License  Contributors: Jtneill, NyenyecImage: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.wikipediaFile: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:GaliaoffriFile:Milgram Experiment v2.png  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Milgram_Experiment_v2.png  License: GNU Free Documentation License  Contributors: Originaluploader was Expiring frog at en.wikipediaFile: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 AFile:OF.jpg  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:OF.jpg  License: Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0  Contributors: TaoPanFile: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 ProjectFile:Ppvt.jpg  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Ppvt.jpg  License: Public Domain  Contributors: PEBLImage:psychopy.png  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Psychopy.png  License: Creative Commons Attribution 3.0  Contributors: Jon.peirceImage:Addictiondependence1.gif  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Addictiondependence1.gif  License: Public Domain  Contributors: Kelly, Leyo, McZusatz, Was a beeImage:Ratselfinject.gif  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Ratselfinject.gif  License: Public domain  Contributors: Stefan FlöperFile: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:Tomf688File: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 CommonsAttribution 2.0  Contributors: flattop341 from South Carolina, USA, 3rd RockImage: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 BlanningImage: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

License 149

LicenseCreative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported//creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/