Please review “week 2_PSYC 495” and then the “study 1 & 3” attachments too.Concerning Ethical Case Studies and the APA Ethical Guidelines
First take a look at the 3 Case Studies below.
Study 1, concerns Watson’s famous Little Albert. Although we all know the story of Little Albert, we may not have read Watson and Rayner’s original 1920’s study. Take into consideration the context and spirit of the times or Zeitgeist, if you will, when analyzing this study and the next one. http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Watson/emotion.htm
Study 2 tells the story of Wendell Johnson, or more specifically, Mary Tudor’s study of children in an orphanage in Iowa. It’s called the Monster Study for a reason as you will see.
The Monster Study
Study 3 concerns Seligman and Maier’s (1967) Learned Helplessness study. Again, it helps to read these original studies when possible, so we can form our own judgments. http://psych.hanover.edu/classes/learning/papers/seligman%20maier%201967.pdf
Your assignment: Please read over these studies and select one to analyze.
You will need to first review APA’s Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct. You can find the link and other very useful information in the Psychology Learning Tools under Course Content. Go to the First Module (Intro to PSYC @ UMGC, and click on Ethical Guidelines and Considerations). You will find ethical considerations to current events and historical studies and understand more fully the reason why we need the ethical principles.
Next, in your analysis, give some background information and then tell us which of the General Principles and/ or which Ethical Standard was violated, and explain why. Do you think that the study you choose would be approved by an IRB today? Why do you think the study was allowed or tolerated at the time?Classics in the History of Psychology
An internet resource developed by
Christopher D. Green
York University, Toronto, Ontario
(Return to
Classics index)
CONDITIONED EMOTIONAL REACTIONS
By John B. Watson and Rosalie Rayner(1920)
First published in Journal of Experimental Psychology, 3(1), 1-14.
In recent literature various speculations have been entered into concerning the possibility of conditioning various types of emotional response, but direct experimental evidence in support of such a view has been lacking. If the theory advanced by Watson and Morgan [1] to the effect that in infancy the original emotional reaction patterns are few, consisting so far as observed of fear, rage and love, then there must be some simple method by means of which the range of stimuli which can call out these emotions and their compounds is greatly increased. Otherwise, complexity in adult response could not be accounted for. These authors without adequate experimental evidence advanced the view that this range was increased by means of conditioned reflex factors. It was suggested there that the early home life of the child furnishes a laboratory situation for establishing conditioned emotional responses. The present authors have recently put the whole matter to an experimental test.
Experimental work had been done so far on only one child, Albert B. This infant was reared almost from birth in a hospital environment; his mother was a wet nurse in the Harriet Lane Home for Invalid Children. Albert’s life was normal: he was healthy from birth and one of the best developed youngsters ever brought to the hospital, weighing twenty-one pounds at nine months of age. He was on the whole stolid and unemotional. His stability was one of the principal reasons for using him as a subject in this test. We [p.2] felt that we could do him relatively little harm by carrying out such experiments as those outlined below.
At approximately nine months of age we ran him through the emotional tests that have become a part of our regular routine in determining whether fear reactions can be called out by other stimuli than sharp noises and the sudden removal of support. Tests of this type have been described by the senior author in another place.[2] In brief, the infant was confronted suddenly and for the first time successively with a white rat, a rabbit, a dog, a monkey, with masks with and without hair, cotton wool, burning newspapers, etc. A permanent record of Albert’s reactions to these objects and situations has been preserved in a motion picture study. Manipulation was the most usual reaction called out. At no time did this infant ever show fear in any situation. These experimental records were confirmed by the casual observations of the mother and hospital attendants. No one had ever seen him in a state of fear and rage. The infant practically never cried.
Up to approximately nine months of age we had not tested him with loud sounds. The test to determine whether Journal of Experimental Psychology
VoL. 74, No. 1 MAY 1967
FAILURE TO ESCAPE TRAUMATIC SHOCK 1
MARTIN E; P. SELIGMAN 2 AND STEVEN F. MAIER 8
University of Pennsylvania
Dogs which had 1st learned to panel press in a harness in order to escape shock subsequently showed normal acquisition of escape/ avoidance behavior in a shuttle box. In contrast, yoked, inescapable shock in the harness produced profound interference with subsequent escape responding in the shuttle box. Initial experience with escape in the shuttle box led to enhanced panel pressing during inescapable shock in the harness and prevented interference with later responding in the shuttle box. Inescapable shock in the harness and failure to escape in the shuttle box produced interference with escape responding after a 7-day rest. These results were interpreted as supporting a learned “helplessness” explanation of interference with escape re sponding: Ss failed to escape shock in the shuttle box following in escapable shock in the harness·. because they had learned that shock termination was independent of responding.
Overmier and Seligman (1967) have shown that the prior exposure of dogs to inescapable shock in a Pavlovian harness reliably results in interfer ence with subsequent escape/avoidance learning in a shuttle box. Typically, these dogs do not even escape from
1 This research was supported by grants to
R. L. Solomon from tlie National Science Foundation (GB-2428) and tlie National In stitute of Mental Healtli (MH-04202). The
authors are grateful to R. L. Solomon, J.
Aronfreed, J. Geer, H. Gleitman, F. Irwin,
D. Williams, and J. Wishner for their advice in tlie conduct and reporting of these ex periments. The authors also thank J. Bruce Overmier with whom Exp. I was begun.
2 National Science Foundation predoctoral fellow.
8 National Institute of Mental Health pre
doctoral fellow.
shock in the shuttle box. They initi ally show normal reactivity to shock, but after a few trials, they passively “accept” shock and fail to make escape movements. Moreover, if an escape or avoidance response does occur, it does not reliably predict future escapes or avoidances, as it does in normal dogs. This pattern of effects is probably not the result of incompatible skeletal responses reinforced during the in escapable shocks, because it can be shown even when the inescapable shocks are delivered while the dogs are paralyzed by curare. This be havior is also probably not the result of adaptation to shock, because it occurs even when escape/avoidance shocks are intensified. However, the fact that in-
2 MARTIN E. P. SELIGMAN AND STEVEN F. MAIER
terference does not occur if 48 hr. elapse between exposure to inescap able shock in the harness and escape/ avoidance training, suggests that the phenomenon may be partially depend ent upon some other temporary proc ess.
Overmier and Seligman (1967) sug g
Please review “week 2_PSYC 495” and then the “study 1 & 3” attachments too.Concerning Ethical Case Studies and the APA Ethical Guidelines
First take a look at the 3 Case Studies below.
Study 1, concerns Watson’s famous Little Albert. Although we all know the story of Little Albert, we may not have read Watson and Rayner’s original 1920’s study. Take into consideration the context and spirit of the times or Zeitgeist, if you will, when analyzing this study and the next one. http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Watson/emotion.htm
Study 2 tells the story of Wendell Johnson, or more specifically, Mary Tudor’s study of children in an orphanage in Iowa. It’s called the Monster Study for a reason as you will see.
The Monster Study
Study 3 concerns Seligman and Maier’s (1967) Learned Helplessness study. Again, it helps to read these original studies when possible, so we can form our own judgments. http://psych.hanover.edu/classes/learning/papers/seligman%20maier%201967.pdf
Your assignment: Please read over these studies and select one to analyze.
You will need to first review APA’s Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct. You can find the link and other very useful information in the Psychology Learning Tools under Course Content. Go to the First Module (Intro to PSYC @ UMGC, and click on Ethical Guidelines and Considerations). You will find ethical considerations to current events and historical studies and understand more fully the reason why we need the ethical principles.
Next, in your analysis, give some background information and then tell us which of the General Principles and/ or which Ethical Standard was violated, and explain why. Do you think that the study you choose would be approved by an IRB today? Why do you think the study was allowed or tolerated at the time?Classics in the History of Psychology
An internet resource developed by
Christopher D. Green
York University, Toronto, Ontario
(Return to
Classics index)
CONDITIONED EMOTIONAL REACTIONS
By John B. Watson and Rosalie Rayner(1920)
First published in Journal of Experimental Psychology, 3(1), 1-14.
In recent literature various speculations have been entered into concerning the possibility of conditioning various types of emotional response, but direct experimental evidence in support of such a view has been lacking. If the theory advanced by Watson and Morgan [1] to the effect that in infancy the original emotional reaction patterns are few, consisting so far as observed of fear, rage and love, then there must be some simple method by means of which the range of stimuli which can call out these emotions and their compounds is greatly increased. Otherwise, complexity in adult response could not be accounted for. These authors without adequate experimental evidence advanced the view that this range was increased by means of conditioned reflex factors. It was suggested there that the early home life of the child furnishes a laboratory situation for establishing conditioned emotional responses. The present authors have recently put the whole matter to an experimental test.
Experimental work had been done so far on only one child, Albert B. This infant was reared almost from birth in a hospital environment; his mother was a wet nurse in the Harriet Lane Home for Invalid Children. Albert’s life was normal: he was healthy from birth and one of the best developed youngsters ever brought to the hospital, weighing twenty-one pounds at nine months of age. He was on the whole stolid and unemotional. His stability was one of the principal reasons for using him as a subject in this test. We [p.2] felt that we could do him relatively little harm by carrying out such experiments as those outlined below.
At approximately nine months of age we ran him through the emotional tests that have become a part of our regular routine in determining whether fear reactions can be called out by other stimuli than sharp noises and the sudden removal of support. Tests of this type have been described by the senior author in another place.[2] In brief, the infant was confronted suddenly and for the first time successively with a white rat, a rabbit, a dog, a monkey, with masks with and without hair, cotton wool, burning newspapers, etc. A permanent record of Albert’s reactions to these objects and situations has been preserved in a motion picture study. Manipulation was the most usual reaction called out. At no time did this infant ever show fear in any situation. These experimental records were confirmed by the casual observations of the mother and hospital attendants. No one had ever seen him in a state of fear and rage. The infant practically never cried.
Up to approximately nine months of age we had not tested him with loud sounds. The test to determine whether Journal of Experimental Psychology
VoL. 74, No. 1 MAY 1967
FAILURE TO ESCAPE TRAUMATIC SHOCK 1
MARTIN E; P. SELIGMAN 2 AND STEVEN F. MAIER 8
University of Pennsylvania
Dogs which had 1st learned to panel press in a harness in order to escape shock subsequently showed normal acquisition of escape/ avoidance behavior in a shuttle box. In contrast, yoked, inescapable shock in the harness produced profound interference with subsequent escape responding in the shuttle box. Initial experience with escape in the shuttle box led to enhanced panel pressing during inescapable shock in the harness and prevented interference with later responding in the shuttle box. Inescapable shock in the harness and failure to escape in the shuttle box produced interference with escape responding after a 7-day rest. These results were interpreted as supporting a learned “helplessness” explanation of interference with escape re sponding: Ss failed to escape shock in the shuttle box following in escapable shock in the harness·. because they had learned that shock termination was independent of responding.
Overmier and Seligman (1967) have shown that the prior exposure of dogs to inescapable shock in a Pavlovian harness reliably results in interfer ence with subsequent escape/avoidance learning in a shuttle box. Typically, these dogs do not even escape from
1 This research was supported by grants to
R. L. Solomon from tlie National Science Foundation (GB-2428) and tlie National In stitute of Mental Healtli (MH-04202). The
authors are grateful to R. L. Solomon, J.
Aronfreed, J. Geer, H. Gleitman, F. Irwin,
D. Williams, and J. Wishner for their advice in tlie conduct and reporting of these ex periments. The authors also thank J. Bruce Overmier with whom Exp. I was begun.
2 National Science Foundation predoctoral fellow.
8 National Institute of Mental Health pre
doctoral fellow.
shock in the shuttle box. They initi ally show normal reactivity to shock, but after a few trials, they passively “accept” shock and fail to make escape movements. Moreover, if an escape or avoidance response does occur, it does not reliably predict future escapes or avoidances, as it does in normal dogs. This pattern of effects is probably not the result of incompatible skeletal responses reinforced during the in escapable shocks, because it can be shown even when the inescapable shocks are delivered while the dogs are paralyzed by curare. This be havior is also probably not the result of adaptation to shock, because it occurs even when escape/avoidance shocks are intensified. However, the fact that in-
2 MARTIN E. P. SELIGMAN AND STEVEN F. MAIER
terference does not occur if 48 hr. elapse between exposure to inescap able shock in the harness and escape/ avoidance training, suggests that the phenomenon may be partially depend ent upon some other temporary proc ess.
Overmier and Seligman (1967) sug g
Please review “week 2_PSYC 495” and then the “study 1 & 3” attachments too.Concerning Ethical Case Studies and the APA Ethical Guidelines
First take a look at the 3 Case Studies below.
Study 1, concerns Watson’s famous Little Albert. Although we all know the story of Little Albert, we may not have read Watson and Rayner’s original 1920’s study. Take into consideration the context and spirit of the times or Zeitgeist, if you will, when analyzing this study and the next one. http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Watson/emotion.htm
Study 2 tells the story of Wendell Johnson, or more specifically, Mary Tudor’s study of children in an orphanage in Iowa. It’s called the Monster Study for a reason as you will see.
The Monster Study
Study 3 concerns Seligman and Maier’s (1967) Learned Helplessness study. Again, it helps to read these original studies when possible, so we can form our own judgments. http://psych.hanover.edu/classes/learning/papers/seligman%20maier%201967.pdf
Your assignment: Please read over these studies and select one to analyze.
You will need to first review APA’s Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct. You can find the link and other very useful information in the Psychology Learning Tools under Course Content. Go to the First Module (Intro to PSYC @ UMGC, and click on Ethical Guidelines and Considerations). You will find ethical considerations to current events and historical studies and understand more fully the reason why we need the ethical principles.
Next, in your analysis, give some background information and then tell us which of the General Principles and/ or which Ethical Standard was violated, and explain why. Do you think that the study you choose would be approved by an IRB today? Why do you think the study was allowed or tolerated at the time?Classics in the History of Psychology
An internet resource developed by
Christopher D. Green
York University, Toronto, Ontario
(Return to
Classics index)
CONDITIONED EMOTIONAL REACTIONS
By John B. Watson and Rosalie Rayner(1920)
First published in Journal of Experimental Psychology, 3(1), 1-14.
In recent literature various speculations have been entered into concerning the possibility of conditioning various types of emotional response, but direct experimental evidence in support of such a view has been lacking. If the theory advanced by Watson and Morgan [1] to the effect that in infancy the original emotional reaction patterns are few, consisting so far as observed of fear, rage and love, then there must be some simple method by means of which the range of stimuli which can call out these emotions and their compounds is greatly increased. Otherwise, complexity in adult response could not be accounted for. These authors without adequate experimental evidence advanced the view that this range was increased by means of conditioned reflex factors. It was suggested there that the early home life of the child furnishes a laboratory situation for establishing conditioned emotional responses. The present authors have recently put the whole matter to an experimental test.
Experimental work had been done so far on only one child, Albert B. This infant was reared almost from birth in a hospital environment; his mother was a wet nurse in the Harriet Lane Home for Invalid Children. Albert’s life was normal: he was healthy from birth and one of the best developed youngsters ever brought to the hospital, weighing twenty-one pounds at nine months of age. He was on the whole stolid and unemotional. His stability was one of the principal reasons for using him as a subject in this test. We [p.2] felt that we could do him relatively little harm by carrying out such experiments as those outlined below.
At approximately nine months of age we ran him through the emotional tests that have become a part of our regular routine in determining whether fear reactions can be called out by other stimuli than sharp noises and the sudden removal of support. Tests of this type have been described by the senior author in another place.[2] In brief, the infant was confronted suddenly and for the first time successively with a white rat, a rabbit, a dog, a monkey, with masks with and without hair, cotton wool, burning newspapers, etc. A permanent record of Albert’s reactions to these objects and situations has been preserved in a motion picture study. Manipulation was the most usual reaction called out. At no time did this infant ever show fear in any situation. These experimental records were confirmed by the casual observations of the mother and hospital attendants. No one had ever seen him in a state of fear and rage. The infant practically never cried.
Up to approximately nine months of age we had not tested him with loud sounds. The test to determine whether Journal of Experimental Psychology
VoL. 74, No. 1 MAY 1967
FAILURE TO ESCAPE TRAUMATIC SHOCK 1
MARTIN E; P. SELIGMAN 2 AND STEVEN F. MAIER 8
University of Pennsylvania
Dogs which had 1st learned to panel press in a harness in order to escape shock subsequently showed normal acquisition of escape/ avoidance behavior in a shuttle box. In contrast, yoked, inescapable shock in the harness produced profound interference with subsequent escape responding in the shuttle box. Initial experience with escape in the shuttle box led to enhanced panel pressing during inescapable shock in the harness and prevented interference with later responding in the shuttle box. Inescapable shock in the harness and failure to escape in the shuttle box produced interference with escape responding after a 7-day rest. These results were interpreted as supporting a learned “helplessness” explanation of interference with escape re sponding: Ss failed to escape shock in the shuttle box following in escapable shock in the harness·. because they had learned that shock termination was independent of responding.
Overmier and Seligman (1967) have shown that the prior exposure of dogs to inescapable shock in a Pavlovian harness reliably results in interfer ence with subsequent escape/avoidance learning in a shuttle box. Typically, these dogs do not even escape from
1 This research was supported by grants to
R. L. Solomon from tlie National Science Foundation (GB-2428) and tlie National In stitute of Mental Healtli (MH-04202). The
authors are grateful to R. L. Solomon, J.
Aronfreed, J. Geer, H. Gleitman, F. Irwin,
D. Williams, and J. Wishner for their advice in tlie conduct and reporting of these ex periments. The authors also thank J. Bruce Overmier with whom Exp. I was begun.
2 National Science Foundation predoctoral fellow.
8 National Institute of Mental Health pre
doctoral fellow.
shock in the shuttle box. They initi ally show normal reactivity to shock, but after a few trials, they passively “accept” shock and fail to make escape movements. Moreover, if an escape or avoidance response does occur, it does not reliably predict future escapes or avoidances, as it does in normal dogs. This pattern of effects is probably not the result of incompatible skeletal responses reinforced during the in escapable shocks, because it can be shown even when the inescapable shocks are delivered while the dogs are paralyzed by curare. This be havior is also probably not the result of adaptation to shock, because it occurs even when escape/avoidance shocks are intensified. However, the fact that in-
2 MARTIN E. P. SELIGMAN AND STEVEN F. MAIER
terference does not occur if 48 hr. elapse between exposure to inescap able shock in the harness and escape/ avoidance training, suggests that the phenomenon may be partially depend ent upon some other temporary proc ess.
Overmier and Seligman (1967) sug g
Please review “week 2_PSYC 495” and then the “study 1 & 3” attachments too.Concerning Ethical Case Studies and the APA Ethical Guidelines
First take a look at the 3 Case Studies below.
Study 1, concerns Watson’s famous Little Albert. Although we all know the story of Little Albert, we may not have read Watson and Rayner’s original 1920’s study. Take into consideration the context and spirit of the times or Zeitgeist, if you will, when analyzing this study and the next one. http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Watson/emotion.htm
Study 2 tells the story of Wendell Johnson, or more specifically, Mary Tudor’s study of children in an orphanage in Iowa. It’s called the Monster Study for a reason as you will see.
The Monster Study
Study 3 concerns Seligman and Maier’s (1967) Learned Helplessness study. Again, it helps to read these original studies when possible, so we can form our own judgments. http://psych.hanover.edu/classes/learning/papers/seligman%20maier%201967.pdf
Your assignment: Please read over these studies and select one to analyze.
You will need to first review APA’s Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct. You can find the link and other very useful information in the Psychology Learning Tools under Course Content. Go to the First Module (Intro to PSYC @ UMGC, and click on Ethical Guidelines and Considerations). You will find ethical considerations to current events and historical studies and understand more fully the reason why we need the ethical principles.
Next, in your analysis, give some background information and then tell us which of the General Principles and/ or which Ethical Standard was violated, and explain why. Do you think that the study you choose would be approved by an IRB today? Why do you think the study was allowed or tolerated at the time?Classics in the History of Psychology
An internet resource developed by
Christopher D. Green
York University, Toronto, Ontario
(Return to
Classics index)
CONDITIONED EMOTIONAL REACTIONS
By John B. Watson and Rosalie Rayner(1920)
First published in Journal of Experimental Psychology, 3(1), 1-14.
In recent literature various speculations have been entered into concerning the possibility of conditioning various types of emotional response, but direct experimental evidence in support of such a view has been lacking. If the theory advanced by Watson and Morgan [1] to the effect that in infancy the original emotional reaction patterns are few, consisting so far as observed of fear, rage and love, then there must be some simple method by means of which the range of stimuli which can call out these emotions and their compounds is greatly increased. Otherwise, complexity in adult response could not be accounted for. These authors without adequate experimental evidence advanced the view that this range was increased by means of conditioned reflex factors. It was suggested there that the early home life of the child furnishes a laboratory situation for establishing conditioned emotional responses. The present authors have recently put the whole matter to an experimental test.
Experimental work had been done so far on only one child, Albert B. This infant was reared almost from birth in a hospital environment; his mother was a wet nurse in the Harriet Lane Home for Invalid Children. Albert’s life was normal: he was healthy from birth and one of the best developed youngsters ever brought to the hospital, weighing twenty-one pounds at nine months of age. He was on the whole stolid and unemotional. His stability was one of the principal reasons for using him as a subject in this test. We [p.2] felt that we could do him relatively little harm by carrying out such experiments as those outlined below.
At approximately nine months of age we ran him through the emotional tests that have become a part of our regular routine in determining whether fear reactions can be called out by other stimuli than sharp noises and the sudden removal of support. Tests of this type have been described by the senior author in another place.[2] In brief, the infant was confronted suddenly and for the first time successively with a white rat, a rabbit, a dog, a monkey, with masks with and without hair, cotton wool, burning newspapers, etc. A permanent record of Albert’s reactions to these objects and situations has been preserved in a motion picture study. Manipulation was the most usual reaction called out. At no time did this infant ever show fear in any situation. These experimental records were confirmed by the casual observations of the mother and hospital attendants. No one had ever seen him in a state of fear and rage. The infant practically never cried.
Up to approximately nine months of age we had not tested him with loud sounds. The test to determine whether Journal of Experimental Psychology
VoL. 74, No. 1 MAY 1967
FAILURE TO ESCAPE TRAUMATIC SHOCK 1
MARTIN E; P. SELIGMAN 2 AND STEVEN F. MAIER 8
University of Pennsylvania
Dogs which had 1st learned to panel press in a harness in order to escape shock subsequently showed normal acquisition of escape/ avoidance behavior in a shuttle box. In contrast, yoked, inescapable shock in the harness produced profound interference with subsequent escape responding in the shuttle box. Initial experience with escape in the shuttle box led to enhanced panel pressing during inescapable shock in the harness and prevented interference with later responding in the shuttle box. Inescapable shock in the harness and failure to escape in the shuttle box produced interference with escape responding after a 7-day rest. These results were interpreted as supporting a learned “helplessness” explanation of interference with escape re sponding: Ss failed to escape shock in the shuttle box following in escapable shock in the harness·. because they had learned that shock termination was independent of responding.
Overmier and Seligman (1967) have shown that the prior exposure of dogs to inescapable shock in a Pavlovian harness reliably results in interfer ence with subsequent escape/avoidance learning in a shuttle box. Typically, these dogs do not even escape from
1 This research was supported by grants to
R. L. Solomon from tlie National Science Foundation (GB-2428) and tlie National In stitute of Mental Healtli (MH-04202). The
authors are grateful to R. L. Solomon, J.
Aronfreed, J. Geer, H. Gleitman, F. Irwin,
D. Williams, and J. Wishner for their advice in tlie conduct and reporting of these ex periments. The authors also thank J. Bruce Overmier with whom Exp. I was begun.
2 National Science Foundation predoctoral fellow.
8 National Institute of Mental Health pre
doctoral fellow.
shock in the shuttle box. They initi ally show normal reactivity to shock, but after a few trials, they passively “accept” shock and fail to make escape movements. Moreover, if an escape or avoidance response does occur, it does not reliably predict future escapes or avoidances, as it does in normal dogs. This pattern of effects is probably not the result of incompatible skeletal responses reinforced during the in escapable shocks, because it can be shown even when the inescapable shocks are delivered while the dogs are paralyzed by curare. This be havior is also probably not the result of adaptation to shock, because it occurs even when escape/avoidance shocks are intensified. However, the fact that in-
2 MARTIN E. P. SELIGMAN AND STEVEN F. MAIER
terference does not occur if 48 hr. elapse between exposure to inescap able shock in the harness and escape/ avoidance training, suggests that the phenomenon may be partially depend ent upon some other temporary proc ess.
Overmier and Seligman (1967) sug g
