Visit the Places

economia-informacion.com

psicologia-informacion.com


WORKS OF THE AUTHOR:

Book:

The Theory of the Senergicons Psico-sociological aspects of the Economic Underdevelopment

Dedication, Foreword and Chapter 19 of The Theory of the Senergicons


Book:

The Theory of the Optimal Distribution of the Income


The Theory of the Optimal Distribution of the Income in Spanish can be download of this place starting from the following three documents:

1 The Theory of the Optimal Distribution of the Income Instructions (English)

2 The Theory of the Optimal Distribution of the Income (Chapters 9 to 16 and 20 Spanish)

3 The Theory of the Optimal Distribution of the Income (Complete book Spanish)


Document 3 requires key number to be open. See instructions in document 1.


The translation to the English language of The Theory of the Senergicons can be download of this place starting from the following three documents:

1 The Theory of the Senergicons Instructions

2 The Theory of the Senergicons Chapters 1 to 11

3 The Theory of the Senergicons Chapters 12 to 19


Document 3 requires key number to be open. See instructions in document 1.


The documents 1, 2 and 3 of The Neofisiocratic Theory, as well as the documents 1 and 2 and 3 of The Theory of the Senergicons open up with the program Adobe Acrobat, which is free. To acquire Acrobat Reader v4.05 you should go to the place of Adobe


TO SEND THE PAGE TO A FRIEND AND COMMENTS

To send the address of this page to a friend

Comments




FastCounter by LinkExchange
 

Section of this document:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9
 

HOME
 

19.10 EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN TO MEASURE ATTITUDE TOWARDS STEALING

When we area trying to measure attitudes towards a particular social norm as, for example, do not lie, the first thing we have to do is elaborate the experimental design that will allow us to isolate the individual's simple attitude towards lying, from the complex attitude he may have towards one lying in particular. In this section we will try to develop an experimental model to measure the affective state or senergicon, based on the galvanic response of the skin (GSR), following the model presented in the equations 19.3 and 19.4. The idea is to isolate in the GSR the response of that senergicon in particular that interests us from the rest of the senergicons the individual may experience. This will imply, as we saw in the previous section, maintaining a variable X1 constant and maintaining at zero other variables X3 and X4. Many of the methodological problems presented in this context are also present if any other variable is used as an index of the presence of the senergicon as, for example, the chemical composition of the blood or pupil response. Consequently, the manner in which we deal with these methodological problems serves to direct the manner in which we could solve those problems that would present themselves if, instead of the GSR, another variable was used.

19.11 FIRST EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN IN RELATION TO STEALING

This experiment is performed in a room with two chairs. In one of the chairs we sit the subject of the experiment and in the other, a confederate subject (person that acts to help the investigator). Both are given the instructions pertinent to the experiment and that will be more fully explained later.

Of the room should have a window that allows the investigator to observe from the outside what is going on in the room without those inside knowing it.

The chairs should have under the armrests a species of double upholstery, so that a pocket is formed where an object can be placed.

The chairs are placed one next to the other, close enough so that whomever is sitting in one of them can extend his hand, comfortably, and reach into the pocket of the chair next to his and withdraw an object from it.

Next to each chair a polygraph is installed, as illustrated in figure 19.1. The polygraph machine of the confederate does not have to be real, we are aware of how expensive this equipment is. Another possibility is to connect both subjects to the same polygraph machine.

The subject of the experiment is told to sit in chair number one and the confederate is told to sit in chair number two.

Figure 19.1


The individuals that are going to participate in the experiment are informed that it is an experiment to determine how nicotine reduces the reflexes. They are told to swallow a nicotine caplet and then, for the next five minutes, remain seated doing nothing in particular. During that time the polygraph to which they are connected will be registering the effect of nicotine on their bodies. After the polygraph reading they may return home until the next day.

Since this same experiment will be performed for seven days consecutively, the subjects will be told that in the next seven days they should always arrive promptly at the same time.

After these instructions, the electrodes of the polygraph are taped to each individual and the necessary readings are carried out in order to obtain a base line reading. After this, the investigator will give each subject the nicotine caplet (placebo) and informs them that during the next five minutes the machine will be analyzing the effects of the nicotine they just swallowed. He also informs them that during this lapse of time he must step outside to take care of other people and will return when the five minutes are up.

Shortly after the investigator leaves, the confederate subject acts as if he just found a flat thin wallet inside the pocket of his chair's left armrest. He opens it and discovers that it belongs to a Ms. Lydia Cruz and that it holds six twenty dollar bills, for a total of $120. The confederate subject should then say the following:

Look what's inside this pocket: a wallet with $120 (he counts the six twenty dollar bills in front of the subject that is participating in the experiment with him). At this moment he says that the wallet belongs to Lydia Cruz. I know her. Last week she was looking for this wallet that she lost. She participated in this experiment before us, but she's finished now and doesn't have to return. I'm going to keep twenty dollars; I don't think she'll miss them if she comes back for the wallet.

The confederate subject should be someone who knows how to act naturally when acting out this role.

At this time what the polygraph should record in terms of GSR will be a measurement of the senergicon anger resulting from the violation of the social norm "do not steal" on the part of the confederate. This is due to the fact that it involves the third dimension of the tricotomic attitude consistent with someone violating a norm in the presence of an individual.

To prevent the subject from telling the investigator where the wallet is--an action that would prevent the experiment from continuing--the confederate subject could say to him:

It's better to leave the wallet here, in the same place, just in case Lydia comes back for it. If I tell the investigator this wallet is here he'll keep the money. I know him well and I know he steals everything he can get his hands on

.Then, they wait until the investigator arrives. Once he untapes the electrodes off their bodies he instructs both subjects to leave.
The next day the investigator informs the subject of the experiment that the other subject is sick and will not be able to attend the experiment for the rest of the week. Immediately, he places the electrodes on him, gives him the same instructions as the day before and leaves the room for five minutes.

Given that the wallet is in the same place and that it has $100 remaining, it is presumed that the individual is now confronting the abstract object established by the social norm "do not steal."

We presume that on this occasion what the polygraph will register in terms of the GSR will be a measurement of the compulsive senergicon anxiety that the violation of the social norm "do not steal" activates, once again because it involves the first dimension of the tricotomic attitude, consistent in violating the social norm even though there are no witnesses.

We also presume that what the polygraph is registering includes the temptation senergicon that is activated by the presence of the money. This variable has a tendency, we believe, to remain more or less constant from subject to subject, because the amount of money remains the same at $100. Consequently, since this part of what has been registered by GSR supposedly is unchanging, the variations that occur in GSR from individual to individual are presumed to be caused by the variations in the compulsive senergicon "anxiety" corresponding to the first dimension of the tricotomic attitude. We can obtain an average GSR for all of the individuals that did not give in to temptation. This would be an estimate of the average level of anxiety that an individual would have to possess in order not to steal $100 when there are not witnesses.

We can also obtain an average GSR for all of the individuals that gave in to the temptation and stole the money. The registration of GSR that is made should be that which takes place before the act of stealing and not during or after this act. This would offer a calculation of the average level of anxiety that an individual has when he gives in to temptation and steals $100 when there are no witness.

If the individual gives in to temptation and takes the money, the experimentor should walk into the room at that moment and say, "Sir, the money you took is not yours, you should return it."

We presume that what the polygraph will register on this occasion in terms of the GSR will be a measure of the senergicon "shame" that the violation of the norm "do not steal" activates; this is because it involves the second dimension of the tricotomic attitude consistent with violating the social norm when there are witness.

It is possible to obtain an average GSR for all individuals who gave in to the temptation to steal. This would constitute a calculation of the average level of shame that those individuals who give in to the temptation to steal have. The same thing can be done with those who did not give in to temptation.

If the individual does not steal the $100, the experimentor will enter the room and will say something to him about the money that will question his honesty, in order to achieve a reaction of the shame senergicon in him. This measurement of the shame senergicon constitutes a reading of the intensity of shame felt by those who do not give in to the temptation to steal. The experimentor could say:


Hey, you know there are $100 in that pocket that belong to Lydia Cruz and you said nothing to us about it, right? What were you thinking of doing with it?

Through the means we have just described, an average of the GSR can be obtained for all individuals who did not give in to the temptation to steal. This would be a calculation of the average level of shame that individuals who do not steal $100 have.
In this manner we would have a recording of the three dimensions of the tricotomic attitude towards stealing.
For the subjects who did not give in to stealing, the previous measurements would constitute a calculation of the level of intensity for each one of the dimensions of the tricotomic attitude towards stealing.

This experimental model contains serious deficiencies and it is very probable that from its application we will not be able to obtain any positive results, that is, no correlation between the level of intensity of the senergicons recorded by the polygraph in each dimension of the tricotomic attitude, and the behavior of stealing or not stealing $100. First, we have presented it with the goal of having it serve as an example to describe the deficiencies that an experimental design can have; secondly, so that it can serve as a basis to improve the experimental design, and thirdly so it serves as a basis to compare these designs.

If we carry out this experiment the way we have described it, it is very probable that, in the case of the first measurement carried out with respect to the senergicon anger that corresponds to the third dimension of the tricotomic attitude, the GSR obtained will not be that produced only by the senergicon anger. It is possible that in the reading that is done of the GSR under these circumstances, we will also be recording the senergicon envy because he was not the subject of the experiment who found the money. In addition we may also be recording the senergicon happiness that is produced by the object money or the related objects that are obtained with it and that serve, through the mechanism of incentives, to incite him to steal, as well; the compulsive senergicon anxiety produced by the related abstract object given by the social norm "do not steal even if there are no witness" and that incites him not to participate in stealing, the senergicon shame produced by the related abstract object provided by the expectation of being surprised if he steals the money, which in turn is related to the related abstract object given by the social norm "do not steal" and that incites him not to steal, the senergicon "fear" produced by the related abstract object given by the consequence (in terms of possible punishments) that the action of stealing could have and that incites him not to steal. Moreover, it is possible that the senergicon anger that is being manifested will not manifest itself fully due to the dissonances caused by the inconsistency between feelings (affective states or senergicons) and that, as we know from Festinger, produce, in their turn, anxiety.

Everything we have mentioned up to this point concerning statistical noise or strange variables that the measurement of the senergicon anger in the third dimension of the tricotomic attitude could contain, measured in terms of the GSR, applies to the cases of the measurement of the senergicon anxiety in the first dimension of the tricotomic attitude and of the measurement of the senergicon shame in the second dimension of the tricotomic attitude.

Please observe that, just as we pointed out in the previous section, the magnitude of the reading that is done of the GSR under these circumstances is expected to not be related with the individual's behavior concerning the decision to steal or not to steal, that is, as far as the execution of the act is concerned, on the part of conscious reason, of the action alternative "steal $100," because the recording that is made of the GSR will contain reflections of the reactions of multiple affective states or senergicons with opposing behavioral directions. A high GSR could mean a high intensity of the senergicon X3, shame, which would mean one would expect the individual not to steal. However, it could also mean that the intensity of the temptation or the senergicon happiness X1 that money produces is very high, which would mean that one would expect the individual to steal. It could also mean that the intensities of these opposing senergicons are great, canceling each other out, in which case it is to be expected that the individual will be in a state of uncertainty, hesitating, trying to decide whether to do it or not; or it could mean the recording of other senergicons, for example, the compulsive senergicon anxiety X2 or the senergicon fear X4 that can be produced by the related objects "do not steal even if there are no witnesses" and "to be punished," respectively. The situation becomes even more complicated if we consider that a high GSR may signify the recording of the sum of other additional senergicons with opposing general behavior components, which would appear recorded in the aleatory variable E. Consequently, as may be seen, this would imply a low correlation between the GSR obtained and the behavior or attitude towards the act of stealing.

The only apparent solution to this problem consists in developing instruments of measurement that can identify without error each affective state or senergicon, as well as its respective intensities. Meanwhile, any improvement in measurement using as an instrument of measurement the polygraph and the GSR as an index of the affective state, will depend on the improvements that can be made in the experimental design.

A way in which we can improve the experimental model is the following:

It seems clear that in order to improve the experimental model we should try to eliminate the effects of all of the senergicons except one. For example, eliminate from the GSR the effect of the senergicon happiness (temptation) that the object money produces, the senergicon fear that the objects "expectation of being caught" and "punishment for being caught," produce, the senergicon anger that the individual who violates the social norm produces and the compulsive senergicon anxiety that the social norm "do not steal" produces, leaving only the effect that the senergicon shame produces. We want that the GSR that is obtained, only contain the senergicon shame.

If the correlation between the three dimensions of the tricotomic attitude in an individual is high, that is, if the anger that the violation of a norm that others commit is intense, the compulsion and the shame that provoke "to steal when there are no witnesses" and "to steal when there are witnesses," respectively, should also be intense. In which case, it will suffice to obtain a record of the attitude towards stealing in any of the dimensions in order to know how an individual will behave before the object "to steal" in the other dimensions. In other words, if he does not steal in front of people, it is to be expected that he will not steal when there are not people looking (witness), or allow other people to steal in his presence. We know, however, that this supposition is not very realistic. The more reality approaches this supposition, the better the predictions we can make of an individual's behavior before the possibility of stealing, based on the results of the GSR obtained in only one dimension.
For these reasons, the first part of this experiment where we try to measure the anger corresponding to the third attitude of the tricotomic attitude, should be eliminated. In this manner we prevent the dissonances between attitudes from counteracting their full manifestation or, more specifically, the manifestation of their senergicons. In such a case, the confederate subject should proceed according to what was previously expressed, except he is not to steal the $20 and leave the remaining $100, but rather he will find $100 and will leave them in the same place he found them. On the other hand, he is not to express or present any arguments that when producing related objects may affect the affective states or senergicons of the test subject. For example, he should not say, "I better leave the money where I found it so they don't surprise me" or "I'm an honest man, that's why I'm leaving it where I found it," etc.. These types of comments bring related objects to the mind of the test subject, which, when they produce cognitive dissonances, alter the final results of the normal manifestation of his attitude towards stealing. The confederate subject should instead say:

Look what's in this pocket: a wallet with $100 (he counts them in front of the test subject). It says here that it belongs to Lydia Cruz. I know her. Last week she was looking for this wallet that she lost. She participated in this experiment before us, but she's finished now and doesn't have to return. I'm going to leave it in the same place just in case she comes back to look for it. If I tell the experimentor he'll probably keep the money. I know him well and he likes to steal everything he can get his hands on.

The last phrased used by our confederate, even though it tries to express the idea in a subtle way, appeals to the test subject's sense of honesty and, consequently, is a related object that can cause him cognitive dissonances that, as we have said, it is best to avoid in the experiment. Nevertheless, it is necessary to prevent the test subject from informing the experimentor the location of the wallet and ruining the experiment. In those cases in which the test subject, in spite of the measures taken, tells the experimentor about the presence of the wallet, the experimentor should respond: "Really, well leave it in the same place where you found it in case Lydia comes looking for it."

If the test subject insists, then this part of the experiment is eliminated or only the first dimension of the tricotomic attitude recorded will be measured.

Once the wallet is left in the same place as it was found, the individual is asked to come for seven consecutive days and the same experiment is repeated with him alone in the room, knowing that the $100 are in the upholstered pocket of the other armchair. Sometimes he can be sat down in the armchair that has the money so that it is easier for him to steal it.

What the GSR records at that moment is supposed to be the senergicon happiness (temptation) produced by the $100, the compulsive senergicon anxiety produced by the expectation of being surprised in the act of stealing, in the first dimension of the tricotomic attitude, the senergicon shame produced by the expectation of steal in the second dimension of the tricotomic attitude and the senergicon fear because of the possible consequences that being caught in the act of stealing may produce, in addition to all of the senergicons with opposite directions that are picked up in the aleatory variable. It is necessary to produce an experimental design that will isolate as much as it is possible the senergicon shame from all the others.

In order to eliminate from the GSR the compulsive senergicon anxiety, we wait until the test subject gives in to the temptation to steal. At that moment the experimentor will walk into the room and surprise him, and then will ask him to hand over what he stole. At this moment we expect the senergicon shame to be the only one being manifested, not the compulsive one, anxiety. Here the senergicon shame that is measured is not the one that is activated before happening the act before the expectation of being discovered, but after having happened the act and the test subject has been found out. We expect the correlation between both acts to be high, and we also expect the disappearance of the senergicon happiness (temptation) that the object money may have produced and which now he will not have, or the objects that can be purchased with the money and serve to energize or incentivize his behavior towards the object "to steal," which he also will not have now because he was caught in the act.
Given that these objects disappear from the individual's presence, they cease to activate his senergicons of happiness (temptation), so that what is recorded on the GSR corresponds only to the senergicon shame. However, the senergicon fear that is produced by the expectation of being punished by his action may still be present in the GSR obtained.

In order to eliminate or reduce to the most minimum level the senergicon fear that may produce the expectation of punishment, from the very beginning the test subject can be told that he will participate in a psychological experiment and that nothing he says or does will be held against him or used to punish him in any way. The very instant the experimetor walks into the room to tell him he has caught him stealing and ask him to hand over the money, he can remind the test subject of this by saying:

As we said to you at the beginning, this is a psychological experiment and you should fear no consequences from this experiment or from what has happened here. We only wish to study the behavior of individuals in relation to stealing. We know that you have just stolen some money; you should hand it over. If you wish, you may stay to discuss this experiment and obtain more information or you may leave if that is what you wish to do.

We expect that during the lapse of time that these words are spoken, the subject that has the value "stealing in front of people is bad" installed will experience great shame and not necessarily fear, happiness, compulsion, etc.. Consequently, the average intensity of this senergicon shame among the forty subjects of the sample that gave in to temptation, will be a calculation of the average amount of shame possessed by the subjects that give in to the temptation of stealing $100.

In order to estimate the average amount of shame experienced by those who do not give in to the temptation of stealing $100, we proceed in the following fashion: when the experimentor enters into the room where the test subject sits with the polygraph connected to him he will say: "Why didn't you tell us about the wallet that was in the pocket of the armchair?" In this manner, parting from the sample of forty subjects, we can obtain the average intensity of the senergicon shame recorded for all of those who did not steal the money. This would be a calculation of the amount of shame that an individual should have in order not to steal $100.

As we have pointed out, for the subjects that do not give in to the temptation of stealing, the recording of shame is obtained through the strategy of questioning their honesty about the possibility that they could be thinking about stealing the $100. This should be carefully designed so that the test subject is not presented with other objects that will activate other senergicons that are not those of shame. For example, if instead of telling the subject: "Why didn't you tell us about the wallet that was in the armchair?" he is told: "You were planning to steal that money," this is an accusation that may be false, in which case it creates the abstract object "to be treated unjustly" which may activate the senergicon anger and the recording of this senergicon will interfere with the recording of the senergicon shame. As one may observe, one has to act very carefully with the experimental design in order not to confront the test subject with these objects.

We repeat once again, all of these difficulties will be overcome as instruments of measurement are developed that are capable of identifying unequivocally each senergicon, and each senergicon's intensity. We trust this will happen soon; it is a matter of assigning a sufficient budget to the research centers in the universities in order to stimulate research in this direction.

We should observe that X1 = level of happiness is activated by the concrete object "money" and X4 = level of fear, by the abstract object, "consequences of stealing." The ideal situation would allow us to measure in each individual the intensities of these senergicons activated by the aforementioned objects. But this would be methodologically impossible with the instruments of measurement with which we count on at this historical moment, because of the complications it would introduce to the experimental design. In its place we should be happy with keeping constant the magnitudes of these objects. We are aware, for example, that $100 do not possess the same usefulness (intensity of the senergicon happiness) for a low-income individual as it does to a high income individual. This problem could be overcome if we try to maintain in the subject sample, individuals of the same economic level. Nevertheless, not even in individuals of the same economic level should we expect them to exhibit the same sensitivity when reacting to the same magnitude of the object "usefulness" in terms of the happiness that that magnitude of the object activates in different individuals. In that way, the differences in personalities could make an individual be innately more sensitive to the senergicon happiness than another individual or the differences in learned values that are made of the object "money" could make it so an individual could react more strongly in terms of happiness before $10 than another individual (see the first two sections of chapter 15). The same reasoning can be applied to the senergicon fear. We should not expect all individuals to be equally sensitive before this senergicon. Some individuals, due to innate differences in personality, can respond in a more sensitive manner than other individuals.

Nevertheless, we should accept these limitations and work with the problems they imply, under the presumption that we can make close approximations to reality if we maintain the magnitudes of objects that activate the different senergicons fixed, so that we can presume that the corresponding activated senergicons remain constant from one individual to the next. In the case of money, keep it fixed at $100, and in the case of the consequences of stealing, keep it fixed at zero, that is, so that it gives the impression that it does not exist. This allows us to part from the premise of a ceteris paribus in the analysis.

19.12 THE SECOND EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN CONCERNING STEALING

Another way which we could proceed in order to measure the attitude towards stealing would be the following: The test subjects are informed that they are going to participate in an experiment to determine how nicotine reduces the reflexes. They are informed, in writing, that they should go to the restroom and keep in their mouths for a period of two minutes a solution that contains nicotine (placebo) and that is not harmful, so that they need not be concerned. After this lapse of time they should get rid of the solution and return to the office where their reflexes will measured electronically. While in the office they will be hooked up to the polygraph machine in order to register the effect of the nicotine on the body. They will do nothing further over the next five minutes, the time needed for the polygraph to record the effect of nicotine on the test subject's body. After the polygraph reading is finished, they are free to return to their homes until the following day.

The restroom where each individual will go to absorb the solution will have a wallet containing $10 dollars in a place on the floor that is completely visible, simulating that it has fallen from someone's pocket. The wallet will also contain a business card with the name José Rivera, and the telephone and address of this Mr. Rivera.

When the test subject returns from the restroom, he is connected to the polygraph machine and the following statement is made:


1. You took a wallet containing ten dollars from the restroom (the polygraph response is read).
2. Hand over the wallet (the polygraph response is read).








All of the test subjects should belong to the same income level.

The same experiment is repeated with three $10 dollar bills in the wallet, with $100 hundred dollar bill, and with $1,000 thousand dollar bill.

In this way the experimentor will have four different levels or indirect measurements of the level of temptation to which the individual is subjected (usefulness of what is stolen = level of happiness or temptation to steal).
The variable "expectation of the probability of being caught" should be reduced to zero, if possible, carrying out the experiment in a restroom near the office, but totally private, in a restroom away from the office, or in a public restroom outside the area where the office is located. In this last case, because it is public, the test subject will suppose that anyone can suddenly walk into the restroom, although in reality the conditions have been controlled so that only he alone will be inside the restroom at that time.
In the previous experiment, the polygraph reading of the galvanic skin response (GSR) should reflect the activation of the emotion of shame that is produced in the individual when he is surprised trying to snatch somebody else's money. Nevertheless, this reading may be contaminated because the experimental model may not isolate completely the effects of the senergicons happiness and fear. Finding a restroom where the test subject will be alone and away from any prying eyes, may not be enough in order to isolate the effect of the senergicon fear.

All of this noise may invalidate the measurement recorded by the polygraph. We should continue, therefore, to find a way to design an experimental condition that will isolate even further the variable that is being studied. For example, we could postpone the previous measurement until after three months from the time of the visit. In other words, say nothing to the test subject when he returns with the stolen wallet. The experimentor pretends to take measurements from the polygraph machine that are supposedly related to the effects of nicotine on his body and then the test subject is told to come back in three months in order to repeat the experiment. It is to be expected that during this period of time the expectation of being surprised will have disappeared, as well as the effect of happiness that the stolen money may have produced. Consequently, it is presumed that the senergicons fear and happiness, that in the first visit may have influenced the recording of the senergicon shame by the polygraph, will have disappeared.

The previous experimental design eliminates the statistical noise produced by the expectation of being caught and by the happiness that is produced by the expectation of possessing the money. However, it does not prevent the individual from feeling both fear and shame when on the second visit, three months later, he is found out. In other words, that experimental design may reduce, but not completely eliminate, the noise caused by this variable. We would have to continue to work on the experimental design until we found a way to completely isolate this particular effect. For example, when the individual returns three months later, someone could explain to him that what this experiment is really about is measuring a individual's honesty and that nothing he says or does will imply punishment in any way. Once the test subject has understood this perfectly, he is connected to the polygraph machine and he is confronted with his actions of three months ago, recording his GSR.

The experimental design to isolate the relevant variables is, as we can see, the most difficult problem facing us. Consequently, the purpose of providing as examples experimental design that are methodologically flawed is to illustrate the nature of the problem we face and how to get a handle on it. The same conditions are applied to the following suggestions, as well.



HOME




Section of this document:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9