Top.Mail.Ru
[psych] Fwd: Why Children Lie and Rat Park - Sibylla Bostoniensis — LiveJournal
? ?

Wed, Feb. 13th, 2008, 01:57 am
[psych] Fwd: Why Children Lie and Rat Park

Two excellent articles via leora:

1) An excellent, excellent article on children and lying. And adults and lying, and parenting and childhood development and intelligence and individuation and argument. Good stuff, if, I hope, somewhat obvious to most readers -- yet stuff that so many people (especially parents) seem so often oblivious to. Well written. Somewhat long. No excerpts, go read.

2) A radical and fascinating article on Rat Park and the addictiveness of intoxicant. Excerpt:
A Skinner box is a cage equipped to condition an animal's behaviour through reward or punishment. In a typical drug test, a surgically implanted catheter is hooked up to a drug supply that the animal self-administers by pressing a lever. Hundreds of trials showed that lab animals readily became slaves to such drugs as heroin, cocaine, and amphetamines. "They were said to prove that these kinds of dope are irresistible, and that's it, that's the end of the addiction story right there," Alexander says. After one particularly fruitless seminar in 1976, he decided to run his own tests.

The problem with the Skinner box experiments, Alexander and his co-researchers suspected, was the box itself. To test that hypothesis, Alexander built an Eden for rats. Rat Park was a plywood enclosure the size of 200 standard cages. There were cedar shavings, boxes, tin cans for hiding and nesting, poles for climbing, and plenty of food. Most important, because rats live in colonies, Rat Park housed sixteen to twenty animals of both sexes.

Rats in Rat Park and control animals in standard laboratory cages had access to two water bottles, one filled with plain water and the other with morphine-laced water. The denizens of Rat Park overwhelmingly preferred plain water to morphine (the test produced statistical confidence levels of over 99.9 percent). Even when Alexander tried to seduce his rats by sweetening the morphine, the ones in Rat Park drank far less than the ones in cages. Only when he added naloxone, which eliminates morphine's narcotic effects, did the rats in Rat Park start drinking from the water-sugar-morphine bottle. They wanted the sweet water, but not if it made them high.

In a variation he calls "Kicking the Habit," Alexander gave rats in both environments nothing but morphine-laced water for fifty-seven days, until they were physically dependent on the drug. But as soon as they had a choice between plain water and morphine, the animals in Rat Park switched to plain water more often than the caged rats did, voluntarily putting themselves through the discomfort of withdrawal to do so.

Rat Park showed that a rat's environment, not the availability of drugs, leads to dependence. In a normal setting, a narcotic is an impediment to what rats typically do: fight, play, forage, mate. But a caged rat can't do those things. It's no surprise that a distressed animal with access to narcotics would use them to seek relief.
One of the things I find interesting about this, purely from a science standpoint is how similar this story is to that of the cutting edge research into neurogenesis currently going on: organisms raised in laboratory cages don't show neurogenesis (mostly) thus leading to the conclusion that brain cells aren't replaced, but a researcher who started raising experimental animals in naturalistic settings seems to have demonstrated they are.

Wed, Feb. 13th, 2008 07:11 am (UTC)
heron61

I'm appalled that I've never encountered that 2nd study before. Wow...

Wed, Feb. 13th, 2008 07:21 am (UTC)
fabrisse

Interesting that only white kids lie (at least that's what I got from the pictures). I found most of it interesting, but the one thing they didn't cover and didn't seem to think to cover was the role of punishment. They mention that kids lie to avoid getting into trouble, but they never define trouble.

My question is whether the type of punishment the child might suffer has any bearing on whether the child chooses to lie. My own instance: my mother beat me for forgetting something at school (in third grade). I forgot it again the next day and got hit for it. She asked me on the third day and I lied and said I had it and got beaten for lying.

One of the big arguments in favor of corporal punishment is that the kids don't forget it and are less likely to repeat the behavior in the future. I wonder if instead the parents are reinforcing the need to lie convincingly.

Edited at 2008-02-13 07:23 am (UTC)

Wed, Feb. 13th, 2008 07:50 am (UTC)
siderea

I wonder if instead the parents are reinforcing the need to lie convincingly.

They specifically address that question in the article (it's five pages long; did you see the subsequent pages?)

Wed, Feb. 13th, 2008 10:49 am (UTC)
twisted_times

I think I learned how to lie convincingly at a young age to avoid getting into more trouble than I was already in. ;p

Wed, Feb. 13th, 2008 03:12 pm (UTC)
fabrisse

Yes, I saw that. I phrased it badly.

I wonder if the nature of the punishment changes whether the children feel the need to lie more convincingly and whether the stricter parents (who in general seem to have more commmunicative teen relationships) may have more issues at younger ages.

I accept that kids want to avoid "trouble" whatever it may be -- in other news: sky blue on sunny days -- but does corporal punishment change the intensity?

Wed, Feb. 13th, 2008 04:37 pm (UTC)
londo

If they did the study in State College, that's not surprising. I've only been there the once, but it was a pretty white town.

Wed, Feb. 13th, 2008 10:33 am (UTC)
cvirtue

Thanks for posting the lying article.

Wed, Feb. 13th, 2008 10:52 am (UTC)
twisted_times

Cat hat icon! :)

Wed, Feb. 13th, 2008 01:14 pm (UTC)
conuly

That is fascinating.

And it reminds me of another study I read - people know that rats raised in enriched environments (even if the enrichment is only as much as a paper towel tube in their cage) are less likely to... well, to go crazy, and they're smarter too. And this information has probably done very little to improve the lives of lab rats everywhere, and caused no end of hand-wringing among parents as to how to "enrich" the lives of their children, though honestly, this information should not have surprised anybody at all.

But, interestingly enough, the smartest and most well-adjusted rats were those raised in something close to their natural environment, not like a cave at all. Which raises the question - what, exactly, is our natural environment? I'm quite certain it's not the one we've built for ourselves, but....

Wed, Feb. 13th, 2008 04:45 pm (UTC)
403

..this information has probably done very little to improve the lives of lab rats everywhere...

It depends on what you want the rats for. The rat lab at my college is primarily for psychological research and they do have an enriched, social environment. (The rats are bred for alcoholism, ironically enough.) But for, say, a researcher trying to develop new muscle relaxants, rats that compulsively twitch, groom themselves, or run in circles are the perfect test subjects.

Wed, Feb. 13th, 2008 02:01 pm (UTC)
lyorn

Interesting article. It does not much surprise me that the story of "The boy who cried wolf" did not reduce "peeking" nor lying about it -- in the story (at least the way I remember it) what the boy is doing isn't lying but playing a prank. Exposing his own lie is part of the prank: "Ha ha, fools, got you running for no wolf at all!" While the cherry tree story is about "did something I shouldn't do which could not be proven and lied/not lied about it" -- a situation extremely similar to the setup.

Also, very good points about the dual nature of lying. I believe that I only got the difference between diplomacy and lying in my late teens, and I'm still undecided if it even matters.

Strange thing, my parents taught me to lie not by example (I was a teen before I ever managed to catch them at a lie I wasn't let in on before), but by actually demanding that I lie, and lie well. I got in trouble if my parents caught me lying to them, but in bigger trouble if I got caught blabbing. Lying meant having privacy. Silence was best, lying was OK, giving away information was walking around in a thunderstorm with a metal rod on your head. Age has made me far less paranoid -- these days I rarely bother to lie. But I still have a hard time finding sympathy for people who get into trouble because they tell the truth to someone who has no business knowing it. Truthfulness seems a virtue that no one benefits from.

Wed, Feb. 13th, 2008 03:48 pm (UTC)
wulfmadchen

I presented Rat Park as part of my journal-club duties in Research Methods class. And people wonder why I so strongly believe that studying non-family groups of chimpanzees in a lab setting (or worse, single chimps) may yield a lot of data about...chimps in a lab setting, but it's not very likely to reveal any ground-breaking insights about human behavior. It also turns out that a lot of what we previously thought was true about the minute intricacies of wolf social behavior as recently as five years ago or so is only true of non-family wolves in a captive setting. For all living things, environment is important.

Wed, Feb. 13th, 2008 08:03 pm (UTC)
dianec42

Both very interesting!

I shall now have that stupid song about being a rat in a cage stuck in my head all day.

I also predict that Rat Park will be resoundingly ignored by those people whose minds are already made up about intoxicants...

Thu, Feb. 14th, 2008 03:46 am (UTC)
yakshaver

In a fantastic book I recently read (Watching The English), the author laments how it seems that every couple of years, anthropologists who study how people behave under the influence of alcohol will testify before some civic body or other that wants to do something about obnoxious public drunkenness — to be greeted by looks of astonishment when they testify that how people behave under the influence of alcohol is socially bound, and then roundly ignored. I don't want to do the cheap cynicism thing, but the people who make public policy really do seem to live in a world where evidence counts for very little.

Sun, Feb. 17th, 2008 10:23 am (UTC)
conuly

They work by a different standard of evidence. This standard of evidence says that imposing draconian laws on easy targets gains votes.

The fact that these laws are often counterproductive and really difficult to repeal doesn't matter as much as staying in power.

Thu, Feb. 14th, 2008 03:55 am (UTC)
yakshaver

I've saved the first article against the possibility of having children some day.

The second article — Christ, this is 30 year old research; why is it news? Why isn't this as much a part of the general scientific literacy of me and my friends as knowing that the sun doesn't orbit the earth?

Thu, Feb. 14th, 2008 07:20 pm (UTC)
ironphoenix

Finally got through reading these; thanks for the links to two excellent and important articles!