- Email: [email protected]
Drugs and the experimental analysis of higher order dispositions
PSYCHO~ARMAKOLOGIE
763
depressant drugs in relation to conditioning, nonsense syllable learning, pursuit rotor learning, reaction times, kinaesthetic figural after effects and visual after effects, apparent movement, flicker and flutter fusion thresholds, visual after image duration, rotating spiral after-effects, suppression of the primary visual stimulus, vigilance, meta-contrast, static ataxia, pupillary reaction to light, adapta~_ion, sedation thresholds and other phenomena; all of these are relevant to the concepts of excitation and inhibition along theoretical lines, and all have been studied in relation to personality. In the majority of cases predictions have been borne out in faet~ Thus, extraverts have been found to condition less well than introverts, hysterics and psychopaths less well than dysthymics, and sub}eels administered depressant drugs have been found to condition less well than subjects administered stimulant drugs. In a similar manner extraverts and hysterics have shorter visual after effects than introverts and dysthymics, with stimulant and depressant drugs having ~the predicted comparable effects. Of particular interest are some of those cases where the predicted effect fails to appear. Thus, it was expected on the basis of the Leplcy-Hufl theory that the bowing of the serial learning curve would be more marked itx extraverts and hysterics than in introverts and dystbymics, and after the administration of depressant than after the administration of stimulant drugs. None of the predicted effects appeared, suggesting that possibly the Lepiey-Hull hypothesis was at fault. A separate experiment undertaken to test this hypothesis directly showed that experimental results were in fact incompatible with the maintenance of the Lepley-Hull theory, thus illustrating that failures of prediction with respect to the typological and drug postulates might be due, not to errors in these postulates, but rhther to errors in the mediating hypotheses from the field of general psychology.
DRUGS AND THE EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS OF HIGHER ORDER DISPOSITIONS VINCENT NOWLIS Rochester, N.Y. (USA)
It has been suggested that some drugs modify the total reperloire of behavior available to the human subject in the testing situatiom Specific instances of this general hypothesis are found in the psychopharmacological literature as assertions that certain drugs affect such global states as: sleep, trance, ecstasy, mood, empathy, social adjustment, tempe-
764
THEMA 20
ramental structure, central affective position, rhythm of psychic life, etc. Since adequate definition of such global states is rarely found, it is extremely difficult to evaluate the present psycbopharmacological evidence which may be relevant to the hypothesis examined here. The nature of the hypothesis also leads to a reexamination of other operations which are said to influence broad repertoires of human behavior, such as the experimental induction of hypnotic and other trance states and of mood and emotional states. If we assume that general psychological states can be defined as higher order dispositions we can then ask the following question: Are there certain basic problems in the experimental analysis of higher order dispositions such that research strategies developed successfully in one domain (e.g., mood) may be expected to facilitate research progress in other areas, such as hypnosis and drug effects? Work on the experimental analysis of mood, sponsored by the University of Rochester and by the Group Psychology Branch of the Office of Naval Research, has lead to a series of questions which apply also to other dispositional states that are available for rapid experimenta! manipulation: 1) What are the test presentations and test responses which are used to define the disposition? ~ 2) In physics, first order dispositions (e.g., magnetized) and second order dispositions (e.g., magnetic) can be identified. In psycholo~" we may identify three or more orders of dispositions; e.g., first order (feelings, cognitions), secondorder(mood, emotionalstates),thirdorder (temperament). What is the most appropriate structure within which to define the disposition? Available are hierarchies of habity families (Hull), of first- and second-order factors (Cattell), of computer language lists and sub-lists (Simon and Newell), of test-operate-testexit units (Miller~ Galanter, Pribram), etc. 3) Is the disposition temporary, self-terminating, self-regulatory? 4) How much of the total repertoire of behavior changes with a change in disposition? 5) By what operations, if any, is the disposition available to verbal report? 6) Is the disposition in a class of dispositions? Is the class such that a person is continuously and at every moment characteriized by at least one o~ the dispositions in the class?
PSYCIIOPHARMAKOLOGIE
765
7) IS the disposition multi-dimensional? 8) What are the determinants of the disposition? Are the determinants of a first order disposition systematically different from ,*hose of a second order disposition, and these in turn from those of a thirdorder disposition? If there is an emerging experimental psychology of higher c,rder dispositions, drug research and dispositional research can be expected to be mutually supportive. I N D I V I D U A L DIFFERENCES IN RESPONSE T O DRUGS CONAN KORNETSKY Boston, Mass. (USA)
The importance of individual differences in effects produced by drugs cannot be passed over lightly as variance resulting from experimental error. I do admit, however, that at times the variance seen is experimental error. Anytime that a single dose of a single drug is g~yen by a single route, under identical conditions to a group of human subjects, or for that matter, to a group of animal subjects, the effects observed will vary between subjects. It does not matter whether one is studyir, g the effects of a drug on gastric motility or on psychological performance, there wiil be variation in response that is beyond the variance caused by the measuring instrument. The only situation that I know of where the administration of a drug will result in no individual, variation in final effect is that situation where the dose of the compound exceeds the LD100. To complicate the matter even further, repeated administration of the same drug, under identical routes, to the same individual may give a variation in effect that wilt transcend the variance that would be found by merely repeating the test over again in the same individual. There have been experiments that have demonstrated that the individual variation may be a function of various external factors. These experiments have usually studied the effects of a specific drug under different experimental conditions. I would like to briefly mention two experimer~B of this type. The first is one by Payne (6) who demonstrated that a drug wi~tl have a differential effect depending on the state of overlearuing of the behavior that is tested after the administration of drug. Thus we see that familiarity with the task may attenuate tfie performance deficits produced by depressant drugs.
763
depressant drugs in relation to conditioning, nonsense syllable learning, pursuit rotor learning, reaction times, kinaesthetic figural after effects and visual after effects, apparent movement, flicker and flutter fusion thresholds, visual after image duration, rotating spiral after-effects, suppression of the primary visual stimulus, vigilance, meta-contrast, static ataxia, pupillary reaction to light, adapta~_ion, sedation thresholds and other phenomena; all of these are relevant to the concepts of excitation and inhibition along theoretical lines, and all have been studied in relation to personality. In the majority of cases predictions have been borne out in faet~ Thus, extraverts have been found to condition less well than introverts, hysterics and psychopaths less well than dysthymics, and sub}eels administered depressant drugs have been found to condition less well than subjects administered stimulant drugs. In a similar manner extraverts and hysterics have shorter visual after effects than introverts and dysthymics, with stimulant and depressant drugs having ~the predicted comparable effects. Of particular interest are some of those cases where the predicted effect fails to appear. Thus, it was expected on the basis of the Leplcy-Hufl theory that the bowing of the serial learning curve would be more marked itx extraverts and hysterics than in introverts and dystbymics, and after the administration of depressant than after the administration of stimulant drugs. None of the predicted effects appeared, suggesting that possibly the Lepiey-Hull hypothesis was at fault. A separate experiment undertaken to test this hypothesis directly showed that experimental results were in fact incompatible with the maintenance of the Lepley-Hull theory, thus illustrating that failures of prediction with respect to the typological and drug postulates might be due, not to errors in these postulates, but rhther to errors in the mediating hypotheses from the field of general psychology.
DRUGS AND THE EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS OF HIGHER ORDER DISPOSITIONS VINCENT NOWLIS Rochester, N.Y. (USA)
It has been suggested that some drugs modify the total reperloire of behavior available to the human subject in the testing situatiom Specific instances of this general hypothesis are found in the psychopharmacological literature as assertions that certain drugs affect such global states as: sleep, trance, ecstasy, mood, empathy, social adjustment, tempe-
764
THEMA 20
ramental structure, central affective position, rhythm of psychic life, etc. Since adequate definition of such global states is rarely found, it is extremely difficult to evaluate the present psycbopharmacological evidence which may be relevant to the hypothesis examined here. The nature of the hypothesis also leads to a reexamination of other operations which are said to influence broad repertoires of human behavior, such as the experimental induction of hypnotic and other trance states and of mood and emotional states. If we assume that general psychological states can be defined as higher order dispositions we can then ask the following question: Are there certain basic problems in the experimental analysis of higher order dispositions such that research strategies developed successfully in one domain (e.g., mood) may be expected to facilitate research progress in other areas, such as hypnosis and drug effects? Work on the experimental analysis of mood, sponsored by the University of Rochester and by the Group Psychology Branch of the Office of Naval Research, has lead to a series of questions which apply also to other dispositional states that are available for rapid experimenta! manipulation: 1) What are the test presentations and test responses which are used to define the disposition? ~ 2) In physics, first order dispositions (e.g., magnetized) and second order dispositions (e.g., magnetic) can be identified. In psycholo~" we may identify three or more orders of dispositions; e.g., first order (feelings, cognitions), secondorder(mood, emotionalstates),thirdorder (temperament). What is the most appropriate structure within which to define the disposition? Available are hierarchies of habity families (Hull), of first- and second-order factors (Cattell), of computer language lists and sub-lists (Simon and Newell), of test-operate-testexit units (Miller~ Galanter, Pribram), etc. 3) Is the disposition temporary, self-terminating, self-regulatory? 4) How much of the total repertoire of behavior changes with a change in disposition? 5) By what operations, if any, is the disposition available to verbal report? 6) Is the disposition in a class of dispositions? Is the class such that a person is continuously and at every moment characteriized by at least one o~ the dispositions in the class?
PSYCIIOPHARMAKOLOGIE
765
7) IS the disposition multi-dimensional? 8) What are the determinants of the disposition? Are the determinants of a first order disposition systematically different from ,*hose of a second order disposition, and these in turn from those of a thirdorder disposition? If there is an emerging experimental psychology of higher c,rder dispositions, drug research and dispositional research can be expected to be mutually supportive. I N D I V I D U A L DIFFERENCES IN RESPONSE T O DRUGS CONAN KORNETSKY Boston, Mass. (USA)
The importance of individual differences in effects produced by drugs cannot be passed over lightly as variance resulting from experimental error. I do admit, however, that at times the variance seen is experimental error. Anytime that a single dose of a single drug is g~yen by a single route, under identical conditions to a group of human subjects, or for that matter, to a group of animal subjects, the effects observed will vary between subjects. It does not matter whether one is studyir, g the effects of a drug on gastric motility or on psychological performance, there wiil be variation in response that is beyond the variance caused by the measuring instrument. The only situation that I know of where the administration of a drug will result in no individual, variation in final effect is that situation where the dose of the compound exceeds the LD100. To complicate the matter even further, repeated administration of the same drug, under identical routes, to the same individual may give a variation in effect that wilt transcend the variance that would be found by merely repeating the test over again in the same individual. There have been experiments that have demonstrated that the individual variation may be a function of various external factors. These experiments have usually studied the effects of a specific drug under different experimental conditions. I would like to briefly mention two experimer~B of this type. The first is one by Payne (6) who demonstrated that a drug wi~tl have a differential effect depending on the state of overlearuing of the behavior that is tested after the administration of drug. Thus we see that familiarity with the task may attenuate tfie performance deficits produced by depressant drugs.