Chapter 32 Chapter 18 The Use and Misuse of Psychology-2

The testing of job applicants by employees is just one small part of psychology's most widespread impact on American life.Every year, about 20 million Americans take standard multiple-choice tests published by more than a hundred companies, some of them multimillion-dollar corporations. (Educational Testing Services alone has a $250 million annual turnover.) The best-known tests are the SATs, which are required for admission to many colleges; Pre-child readiness for first grade, to reasoning skills for students preparing for graduate school, to golf aptitude tests—and many of those personality trait tests we've heard about earlier.Donald N. Bursoff, professor of law and psychology at Johns Hopkins University, concluded:

It is very likely that everyone in our country has been affected in some way by the testing thus far.Testing has become a method by which many major decisions about people's lives are made in industry, education, hospitals, mental health clinics and other civilian service settings. The purpose of Binet's research on intelligence testing at the beginning of the century was to benefit both children and society by determining which children needed special education.Similarly, psychological and employment testing has always had a diagnostic purpose, and its original intention is to benefit the people who take the test and the people and organizations who deal with these people.The extraordinary development of testing in recent decades proves that testing can indeed serve this purpose.In fact, testing is fundamental to the functioning of modern society.Schools, universities, large factories, government and military units will struggle and be at a loss if the information obtained through the test is suddenly lost.

However, testing itself can also lead to misuse.Its most serious consequences would be to deflect some racial and economic interest groups and harm others at the same time.Clearly, the consequences of testing for education and employment are that whites have more opportunities, while blacks and Hispanics and other disadvantaged groups are all adversely affected. For people who have an incorrect genetic view of human abilities, intelligence and achievement tests pose no problem.They believe that middle- and upper-class people score high on these tests simply because, on average, they are inherently more intelligent than other races.As we know, followers of Galton believed that heredity could explain why different classes and races scored differently on IQ and other psychological tests.It was for this reason that schools across the country tested students early in the century, sending high scorers into academic education and low scorers into "vocational" programs, thus preparing students to be successful in every aspect of society. Just in place.

If this reasoning is correct, such tests and placements are not only just, but also serve the best interests of the various members of society.But what if test scores reflect environmental influences?What if poverty and social disadvantage prevent students and adults from developing their latent abilities, causing them to receive lower grades than students or adults raised under favorable conditions?If so, the use of test scores to measure presumed innate abilities and determine individual individuals' educational and employment opportunities is a grave injustice and a major source of social inequality.

During the first half of this century, there has been intense debate over which IQ scores and other tests of cognitive ability measure innate ability, and which ones influence life experience.However, it has become clear in recent years that the data used by psychologists on both the genetic and environmental sides, mainly from cross-sampling (samples drawn from different age groups), cannot realistically explain the Processes observed by other developmental psychologists.Longitudinal studies that track individuals' developmental stages show that nature and education are not static, fixed factors, but interacting and highly variable over time.At any point in life, a person's intellectual and emotional development is the result of a continual interaction of his or her experiences and innate abilities.

As a result, many developmental psychologists now also believe that different genotypes are influenced differently by their environment; each has its own "range of responses."As Irving Goetzman of the University of Virginia explains, a dumb person in an enriched environment may develop only slightly more intellectually than he would in a restricted environment; a A person born with hereditary factors may reach a much higher level of development in a favorable environment than he would in a restricted environment.Thus, at low levels of innate ability, the influence of the environment is much smaller than at high levels.

Such summaries, however, tell us not only about the extent, but also about the relative influence of nature or education on any of us.There are innumerable idiosyncratic factors in each individual's history that preclude analysis of the role played by heredity and environment in influencing human development.So, at least for now, it's not possible to accurately judge a person's innate intelligence based on their test scores. That being the case, how can testing determine schooling and employment without being equitable to the privileged middle class and the disadvantaged others?So far, the answer can only be controlled testing through political and legal means. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its amendments gave minorities and other disadvantaged groups a legal basis upon which to attack tests as racially biased and demand corresponding remedial action.They have challenged education and employment testing in court on the grounds that the test material is familiar to whites but unfamiliar to most minority groups and, more broadly, minority groups , especially blacks and Hispanics grew up under extremely unfavorable social conditions, and any test, even in the form of "culturally fair" such as symbols rather than vocabulary, is unfair.

At the height of the civil rights movement of the 1960s, some activist groups proposed a radical solution to the problem by ditching testing altogether, and in New York, Washington, D.C., and Los Angeles, the government actually banned IQ tests on elementary school students. test.However, those who oppose testing have a majority in only a few cities, and in any case, putting sloppy students and disabled children together with normal and gifted children greatly reduces the education of the latter. levels, so the campaign to end IQ testing quickly faded away. Similar attacks on college admissions tests have been carried out by civil rights activists and activist groups.Ralph Nader, for example, attacked in 1980 that the SATs were designed to discriminate against culturally disadvantaged minority students.Complaints and pressure against the SATs have been going on, to no avail.

Within the confines of the employment test, however, activists have had several major successes, at least temporarily. The "Gross Acuity Test Series" (GATB), which measures several cognitive abilities and some parts of the human body's dexterity, was developed in the 1940s by the U.S. Employment Service. State-level agencies are using this test as the basis for recruiting employees.However, the average GATB score for minority groups is much lower than for majority groups, so that if the resulting score elects, say, 20 percent of whites, only 3 percent of blacks and 1 percent Nine out of 10 Spaniards are likely to be elected to the same batch of jobs.

The Civil Rights Amendment Act made it illegal to use the test in this way, not because the test fails to measure the competencies employers need, but because the state has a policy of compensating disadvantaged individuals accordingly. The ruling of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and a series of court arbitration conclusions have led to a solution called "parity within groups" or "parity within races."Under this policy, test takers are recommended for jobs not on the basis of their raw scores, but on the basis of their scores among peers or the same race.A black who scores 85th among blacks who took the test will be on the same level of competition as a white who scores 85th among whites who took the test, even if the black scored lower than the white.Blacks who scored the same points as whites would be in a better position.In recent years, employment agencies in 38 states have used within-group parity, some more than others.In general, employers also go along with this approach, mainly because it helps them meet the government's affirmative action requirements.

Some psychologists have attacked intraracial parity as a misrepresentation of the test and its measure of job fitness, and political conservatives have attacked it as an illegal “quota system” that is grossly unfair to whites.A 1989 study by the National Institutes supported intraracial parity, but recommended that the Employment Service base job recommendations not just on GATB scores, but also on a job applicant's experience, skills and education.The committee sees merit in both sides of the debate: The question of equitable use of GATB scores cannot be resolved solely by psychometric considerations—neither are fairness considerations alone in recommending policy.If there is a strong federal demand for blacks, women, and certain other minority groups to enter the economic mainstream, there is also a strong interest in improving productivity and strengthening the country's competitive position in world markets. Intra-racial parity was a rather thorny issue in the 1991 congressional debate on the Civil Rights Act.Members of Congress who favored intraracial parity had to give in to those who opposed it in order to pass a bill that President Bush would not veto.The bill eventually passed, banning "adjustment of test scores" based on race, and since then, the Employment Services Agency's 1,700 state and county offices have banned intraracial parity policies. How one views the matter—whether one considers recommending jobs based on racial parity of applicants a right use or a misuse of the test—depends on one's political philosophy. Let’s briefly talk about two debatable test uses: Honesty Tests: The "honesty test" has been marketed for over a decade, and its use by employers has become quite frequent lately.And not without reason.The Bureau of National Affairs estimated in 1988 that employee theft costs US businesses between $15 and $20 billion a year.Some honesty tests gauge people's attitudes toward dishonesty by asking direct questions, such as: "Do you think bringing gadgets home from work is a form of stealing?" Attitude.Other tests use an indirect method in that they measure personality traits from which psychologists can infer a job applicant's attitude toward honesty.Such tests include questions such as: "How often do you blush?" "Do you often feel embarrassed?" "Do you often make your bed?" Not surprisingly, labor groups have long been hostile to honesty tests.At least three state legislatures have heard proposals to ban honesty testing, and a subcommittee of the Congressional Employment Opportunity Commission held hearings on the testing in 1991.Those against it have several reasons: the tests are ineffective and unreliable, and so often falsely classify honest people as dishonest, damaging their reputations and reducing their chances; in addition, the tests are an invasion of privacy , they also have an "adverse effect" on minority groups, keeping more of them than whites out of employment opportunities. A general investigative group of the American Psychological Association concluded in 1991 after a two-year extensive investigation of honesty tests that many publishers of the tests said nothing about their validity and usability.The association therefore urges employers not to use the tests.However, for the few informative tests, the Integrated Investigation Team found: The superiority of the evidence supports its predictive validity...so long as the evidence exists, it is consistent with the ex ante idea that these tests reflect an individual's honesty and reliability, or trustworthiness. Emotional Stability Test: In November 1989, a man named Sybi Soroka applied for a job as a security guard at a Taggart warehouse in California.He was asked to take two tests, one the Minnesota Multistage Personality Survey and the other the California Psychological Test.Soroka sued Taggart's owner, Dayton Hudson, for violating his privacy rights.Those tests (discussed in an earlier chapter) serve multiple purposes, one of which is to filter out emotionally unstable candidates who are unsuitable for "safety jobs" like police officers, pilots, and nuclear plant operators. Sensitive" work.The test paper included hundreds of items, some on religion (“My soul sometimes leaves my body,” “I firmly believe there is only one true religion”) and some on sex (“I wish I I am not disturbed by sexual thoughts", "I am strongly attracted to people of my gender"). Soroka complained that his privacy had been violated by the extreme annoyance of the tests.He requested that Taggart be immediately prohibited from using the results of these tests, and that the company be prohibited from continuing to use such tests.His legal proceedings grabbed headlines.There have long been numerous invasion of privacy lawsuits against some employers for drug testing, but this is the first case in which a standard personality test was used as part of an employment filter to be sued for privacy violations.The court denied Soroka's request for an immediate ban on the use of the test material, but an appeals court granted his request.The court did not limit all such tests, but only those involving unreasonable, invasive questions, such as those involving religion and sex life. By the time this book went to press, the case was still unknown, but whatever the outcome of Soroka's case, he had at least established a beachhead in his assault on the personal test.Other recent attacks on individual testing have been carried out in the name of damaging reputations and causing emotional distress.The line between sensible testing and the misuse of testing is being redrawn.As for where it is drawn, it is still unknown. "Persuasion is everywhere in life," psychologist Eleanor Siegel said in the American Psychological Association's APS Observer.She also said: Almost all social interactions in human society—and among some nonhuman primates as well—contain persuasion in them.Therefore, knowledge about the mental processes that influence people's decision-making also has potential positive implications that cannot be underestimated. There are also negative implications that cannot be underestimated.Until the advent of modern civilization, human beings have been convincing others to believe in their God, convincing others to have sex, or selling other people less valuable goods.They are using well-known techniques, or customary methods, which the other party should usually know as well.Roman councilors listen to Cicero's attacks on Cadiline; mutinous sailors listen to Columbus' unmistakable reassurance; Condemning evil with all their heart, describing the horrible scene of doomsday punishment, knowing very well that their minds and hearts are being manipulated in a culturally defined way, and they make their own judgments in such an atmosphere. With the advent of scientific psychology, however, it became possible for the educated man to use some of the discoveries of the new science to influence the thoughts and feelings of others by techniques not generally regarded as persuasion. This can be said to be done with good intentions.The complex techniques that teachers use to motivate children to learn and psychotherapists use to inspire some change in patients are examples of the psychology of covert persuasion used for the benefit of others. However, these techniques can also be used to induce behavior that is harmful to the subject, not only at its tangible cost, but at the cost of freedom of choice.Those who are persuaded may be stripped of their rationality, and thus not too far from Skinner's ping-pong pigeons, and become mindless creatures, blindly obeying the wishes of others, ignorant of their own interests . Using or abusing psychology to persuade others is so popular now that social psychologists Anthony Pratt-Kanis and Elliott Aaronson of the University of California, Santa Cruz, published their 1992 study of The study on this topic is called "The Age of Propaganda".They refer not only to political or religious propaganda, but to any "communication with an opinion whose ultimate purpose is for the party receiving the message to 'voluntarily' adopt that position as if it were his or her own." ". Since we are interested in the misuse of the psychology of surreptitious persuasion, we have to skip over explicit persuasion, such as honest advertising; rely not primarily on surreptitious use of psychological principles, but on "deliberate disinformation" (the Reagan administration lies about the anti-Iran arms deal); deceitful labeling (Reagan called anti-Iranians "freedom fighters"); unabashed agitation for easily aroused emotions (a cute baby sits photos on McLean's tires); and finally there are certain military uses of psychology, including POW interrogation techniques and brainwashing, which are not done clandestinely and are in any case considered ethical, in war The period is reasonable. It is common to use psychological knowledge for surreptitious persuasion in advertising.Indeed, many ads shine the product directly with alluring lights, extol its benefits and indicate its price.Yet a substantial portion of the $45 billion that the United States spends annually on television, radio, and print advertising pays for messages conveyed using surreptitious techniques of persuasion drawn from principles of psychology.As the journalist Vance Packard argues in The Covert Persuader, the exposé that exposed these scandals in 1957, the principles of psychoanalysis were widely used—and, he added, this was still the case in 1980 -- to "shift the habits of our unwanted thinking, our purchasing decisions, and our thought processes...Many of us are deeply influenced and manipulated in the patterns of our daily lives far more than we realize ". Walter Deere Scott and John Watson and others, who applied psychological principles to advertising early, seem to be quite above board, but, in the late 1940s, some secretly familiar Floyd People in German psychology are already beating around the bush, being tricky, and using psychology a lot.One of the most famous of these was the late Ernest Dichter.Dichter was born in Vienna, received a doctorate in psychology from the University of Vienna, and then engaged in psychoanalysis for a while. However, because he was Jewish, he escaped Nazi persecution and came to the United States in 1938.Unlike most of the other psychoanalysts who fled the country, they resumed their old jobs in new surroundings, but he was different.Realizing that American advertisers were bigger prey than neurotics, he began to sell his services as a psychologist who knew the latent desires of consumers and could stimulate them to buy other goods. customer's product. Dichter wasn't the only one who had this idea. Others who were aware of the psychology of the unconscious started doing similar work.He was, however, a key figure in what came to be called "motivation research."He used psychoanalytic theory to form hypotheses, which he then tested through interviews, questionnaires, and sample advertisements in hundreds of households in Croton, New York, where he is based in Croton on the Hudson River, New York.The impassioned and energetic Dichter lauds that successful advertising agencies can "manipulate human motives and desires and form a need for objects, which the public previously did not know—perhaps did not want to buy at all." needs". A good example of what he was doing was his first seminar using motivational research.His client was the Compton Company, and Tooth Soap was the advertising agency's client.As Dichter later recalled, he told the managers of advertising agencies: "Bathing is a ritual of psychological liberation. What you clean up is not only the dirt on your body, but also your guilt." The evidence gathered convinced them; with his help, they adopted his advice and wrote: "Be wise and start over with tooth soap... and wash away your troubles." He also dramatically changed the intensity of cigarette advertising.In the early 1950s, cigarette advertisements either emphasized the side of enjoyment or the health benefits of cigarettes.Dichter sees neither as powerful.According to his analysis, the typical American is largely puritanical, with a sense of guilt when using any self-indulgent product.Accordingly, Dichter told the company that advertised cigarettes: "Whenever you sell a product that is narcissistic, you have to simultaneously quell the guilt and provide a means." To find such guilt-absorbing factors, he An in-depth study of 350 smokers uncovered a dozen "functional" reasons why people smoke: to relieve tension, to be approachable, to convey a masculine quality, and so on.As a result, his client's commercials, and many later, featured characters under pressure, both in the company and on distant pastures. For many years, motivation research was a hot topic in the advertising industry, and to some extent it still is today.However, after the 1970s, the advertising industry became less interested in the tricks of psychoanalysis—it did not produce the expected amazing effect—and began to turn to newer psychological research for more obvious methods of persuasion. A useful result is the "repeated exposure" effect discovered by Robert Reinz in the late 1960s.As we already know, Reinz found that repeated exposure to even meaningless symbols produced a sense of familiarity and a pleasant response in those who viewed them.Advertising agency psychologists advise their clients that the simple repetition of a product brand and logo, even without rational explanation and time-consuming debate, can sway those who view it.Many advertising agencies have tested this approach and found it to be true.Repeating product names (and of course manly or sexy images, fun in the sun, etc.) over and over during a long football game or tennis match will have its effect.When fans see names they see all the time when buying beer or tennis shoes, they automatically have an unthinking reaction. In recent years, this approach has also become popular in TV spots for politicians, to the detriment of the democratic process.In a logical tirade on some issues, it is popular to concentrate the audience on a 30-second bombardment, or to use short commercials that repeatedly use the candidate's name and use extremely simplistic "Voice" is emphasized.This shifts people's likes and dislikes through simple repetition.You could call this propaganda, but there is no real difference between such propaganda and covert advertising.In both cases, something is being peddled to the audience through shady means. There are also some laboratory discoveries that have been invested in product advertising and publicity in recent years: ——In an experiment based on classical conditioning theory conducted in 1982, subjects saw a pen of one color while hearing pleasant background music, while seeing a pen of another color heard unpleasant music background music.Later, when the subjects were presented with a choice of several pens, they tended to choose the one that had been accompanied by pleasant music.This principle is often used in TV commercials, and it may seem harmless, but it will lead people to make choices that they don't understand. - In contrast to this short-term conditioning effect, the long-term "sleeper effect" has also been demonstrated experimentally.Over time, the emotional response elicited by the ad dissociates from the product name, although the name is remembered.Thus, an ad that draws attention through an unpleasant emotion -- the current TV ad for a catharsis showing a man frowning, accompanied by the sound of a man struggling in pain in the distance -- will have a memory effect , not the other way around.Viewers may think that the ad maker is stupid to use a disgusting shot or unpleasant scene to advertise, but, over time, they will remember the product, not the unpleasantness Reaction. ——Some psychological consulting experts in advertising companies use electroencephalogram analysis to find out what kind of brain wave activity is accompanied by the client's commercials.Eric Clarke cites an example in this recent ad exposé (Demand Maker) about how commercials emphasized the nutritional value of a breakfast cereal.Some researchers showed commercials to mothers of young children. Their EEGs showed that the commercials stimulated the right side of their brains, causing more activity on the right side of the brain (the more emotional half), while the left side of the brain was more active. Not obvious (the more rational half).Therefore, the meaning cannot be conveyed.The problem is with the people serving the ads.He was so beautiful, and the mothers paid attention to him, not what he said.When he was replaced by a voice-over, the viewer's brain waveform changed, and the commercial had the desired effect. — An experiment conducted many years ago by Leon Festinger and Elise Woerster showed that hearsay is more likely to convince the person who hears it.And if the obedient person knows that the speaker is aware of his presence, the effect is often not good.On an unconscious level, we are all influenced, and we tend to listen more strongly to what is not designed to persuade us, and often what is designed to persuade us does not change our position.A few years ago, there was a commercial about E. E．Hatton Brokers.The film shows everyone sitting in a room in silence, waiting to hear a man whisper a piece of Hatton's advice to a friend.The same principle also supports many "sneak shots" commercials, some people are praising the benefits of certain products, without knowing that they have been filmed. — A group of social psychologists conducted an experiment to find out the effect of interruptions on a person being persuaded.They found that people who were distracted by reasonable persuasion believed what the persuader said more than those who were not distracted; the effect was more pronounced if the persuasion was less forceful.The researchers explain that distraction interferes with the viewer's or listener's ability to evaluate or mentally argue with the information.More recently, according to Pratt, Kannes and Aronson, television advertising has exploited this finding: For example, an advertiser can "compress" a 36-second commercial to 32 seconds by running it at 120% of normal speed.Psychologically, time-compression advertising is hard to argue with.Let's say an advertiser is going 100 mph to convince someone else, while you stick to that speed limit and try to justify yourself at 55 mph.You will lose. People who watch TV may wonder why some recent commercials are often flashing pictures, accompanied by some words that thump, and this is the reason. -- Many advertisements subtly persuade children to buy foods that are not good for them, or persuade them to smoke. A recent New York Times editorial eloquently illustrates the situation: This issue is about the camel cartoon that has been around since 1988. R.J. Reynolds said that the camel cartoon was designed for adults only, and the company had no intention of attracting the attention of young people. However, research published last week in the Journal of the American Medical Association showed that the llama cartoon had far more influence on children than adults.It was found that 6-year-old children are as familiar with "Old Joe" as Mickey Mouse.It was also seen that the campaign had dramatically increased the number of teenagers smoking Camels... Camel cigarette advertisements convey a clear message that smoking is a fashion.A sunbathing camel cartoon declares that smoking is a sign of sophistication.Another ad showed a herd of camels as a jazz band, complete with sunglasses and sippy costumes.The company's giveaways reinforce that notion, rewarding smokers with free T-shirts, baseball caps and inflatable air pads. Cigarette advertisements must have warning signs that smoking is harmful to human health. However, advertisements such as Camel cigarettes are now so flashy that people simply ignore the warning signs. — Equally, and possibly more seriously, it exploits symbols based on repressed hatred or terror.One of the most famous examples is a series of promotional videos designed by the late Lee Atwater, the chief architect of President George W. Bush's 1988 presidential campaign.The film says Mike Dukakis is responsible for giving weekend off to murderer Willie Horton, who tortured a man and raped his girlfriend outside of prison.However, the real intention of the film is to create an impact through the image of Horton, an ugly and outrageous black man. These are just a few examples of the unconscious persuasive element in advertising and publicity.We have seen many other examples in our perusal of the history of psychology, among them the foot-in-the-threshold technique of raising funds (asking for a little favor, and asking for a bigger one), and Klarman and Tversky's skewed decision-making experiment (the choice expressed by the winning condition is chosen by more people, while the statistically equivalent choice expressed by the loss condition is only chosen by a few people).Thousands of studies have investigated a wide variety of other factors that affect persuasion, many of which are findings that advertisers, politicians, religious leaders, various activists, and others in the persuasion industry have been and are using.These findings are used to manipulate Americans into making consequential decisions based on unconscious motives or fears, and these are misuses of psychology—although not like the misuse of physics in the atomic bomb, Or as serious as the misuse of biology in biological warfare, but that's not trivial, let alone harmless. However, we should end this discussion and move on to more pleasant topics.The most amazing form of surreptitious persuasion turns out not to be terrible. In 1957, James Vicari, a market researcher, announced that during a screening of the film "Picnic" at a movie theater in Fort Lee, New Jersey, he combined "Coca-Cola, please" with "Hungry? Popcorn, please." These two sentences flashed on the screen every 5 seconds at a speed of 1/3000th of a second.He said that no one is aware of these two sentences, but during the six-week trial period, the sales of Coca-Cola increased by 18.1%, and the sales of popcorn increased by 57.7%. . The story caused a stir.The public was horrified, social critics sounded the alarm, subliminal advertising on radio and television became an instant hit in the 70s, stores played background music with unnoticed warnings of theft, and the FCC responded regulations, saying that exploiting subliminal messages could lead to the revocation of a broadcasting license. This is all nonsense.In The Age of Propaganda, Pratt-Kanis and Aronson report their study of more than 200 academic papers on latent messages.Most of the papers fail to demonstrate that such information actually has an impact on human behavior, and that information that does have an impact is "either completely false on a theoretical basis or cannot be reproduced". Plus, they cite a funny experiment.In these experiments, the CBC subconsciously played the phrase "Dial now" 352 times during a popular Sunday night show, with attendees told in advance that a subliminal message would be played Come out and ask everyone to say what this message is about.The message did not change phone usage during the experiment, and of the nearly 500 people who wrote back, only one reported the correct answer.However, many people who apparently knew Vicari's story said they felt hungry or thirsty during the performance. 可是，所有相信维卡利故事的人都受了骗。《广告时代》1984年的一篇文章说，维卡利承认，他最早的一次实验是哄人的，目的是为了给他入不敷出的营销公司拉客户。 貌不惊人的雨果·曼斯特伯格是第一个建议把心理学应用到法律系统中的人，因为这正是统治结构中的基础。他在1908年出版的《证人席上》一书中总结了影响证词的一些因素中的心理学知识，然后说，应用心理学应该对法官、律师和陪审团有所益处－他批评所有这些人“都以为其法律本能及其常识使他们拥有全部必需的知识，甚至绰绰有余”。可是，这本书产生的收效却极其有限。在接下来的半个世纪内，心理学家很少充当专业证人，他们只为少数几个大城市的警局选拨人员，他们对法律系统中的心理学进行的研究没有产生直接的影响。 然而，从60年代开始，把心理学应用到法律系统中的兴趣大增起来。尽管法律职业人员和心理学家继续保持紧张的关系，可是，应用心理学现在已经充斥于法庭、法院和审辩听证室了。《法庭心理学手册）的最新版本是由心理学家欧文·B·威纳和阿兰·K·希斯编辑的，内容达700页之多，其章节涉及好几个应用领域。每个领域都涉及许多具体的活动，既有民事活动，也有刑事活动。试举几例如下。 ——心理学家现在可以充当法庭顾问，以解决监护权争端问题，因为这个问题涉及父母的能力，并以临床评估方法为基础提出建议。 ——在赔偿金案子中，心理学家可以作出证明，因为赔偿金涉及员工认为某种生理或者心理伤害是工作场地的损害导致的结果。这样一些赔偿要求每年达到数十亿美元，它经常涉及诈病及诈骗；心理学家的工作是要与提出要求者面谈，对原告进行测试，并报告自己的临床印象。 ——测评法庭人员的公正性，它可以用来辨别犯罪嫌疑人。心理学家们会得出对公平和不公平人员组成的研究发现。不公平的人员组成有可能会使辨别变得十分明显，因为他们能使用“替身”——代替别人站在某个位置上的人——与疑犯的外貌极不相同，或者在照片组成中，通过使用疑犯皱眉的照片和替身中性的或者微笑的照片做到这一点。 ——心理学家还能充当法官和检察长的观察人员和顾问人员，使他们在询问一位少年，以确定其作为证人的成熟程度。 ——收集性虐待的证据，因为一些小孩子太小了，无法知道怎样在法庭上作证。利用从儿童疗法中借来的方法，心理学家可以观察孩子玩玩具，以确定与其所宣称的受害情形类似的情景。 ——会见并测试寻求精神错乱保护的疑犯。这个保护措施成功实施的情形远远不及公众假设的水平。有调查发现，公众认为有百分之四十的罪犯使用到了精神错乱保护，有三分之一的人申请成功，可是，专家估计，按照精神错乱的标准，只有不到百分之一的重罪犯人是无辜的。 法律系统中其他的心理学应用领域值得人们怀疑，因为职业工作者不是很愿意接受这些观点，它们的结果也是不稳定的。这里有一些例子： 危险程度判断：审辩组经常请心理学家预测，一个犯过暴力罪的犯人如果出狱的话，他再犯别的重罪的可能性大不大。威利·霍顿给心理学对未来暴力行为的预测评估带来了坏名声，因为他跟其他杀人犯一样，出狱之后又重新杀了人。 对暴力预测的五项研究的回顾经常被人引用，它发现，临床工作者所做的预测只有三分之一的准确度。（然而，这类的许多错误都是无害的“错误预报”——预报某些人释放后会重犯大罪，结果却没有犯。）美国最高法院回顾了一位名叫托马斯·贝尔福特、被叛了极刑的犯人的案子。这人的律师宣称，预测贝尔福特未来会旧罪重犯的证明不应该考虑在对他的量刑中。1983年，最高法院不同意，认为这样的证词不一定就是不可靠的。可是，包括“美国精神病学协会”都认为，涉及死刑判决时，危险度的预测经常会出错，因为不应该在这样一些极刑情形下使用。 谎言测试：心理学家、立法人员、律师、法官和新闻界已经对测谎器的用途和有效性进行过长时间的争论。如我们已经看到过的，有关撒谎的焦虑，特别是当受试者被问及包含与犯罪有关的关键词句的问题时，会产生心跳加快、呼吸急促和皮肤电增阻强等的症状，这些都会明白无误地反映在测谎器上。可是，对这个课题进行的大量研究既提供了支持它的证据，也有反面的证据。有人分析了对测谎器的用途进行的十项最为仔细的研究，分析表明，测谎器比纯粹的碰巧好百分之六十四——这就好多了，可是，要使其用作呈堂证词，那还远远不够准确。 波士顿大学应用社会科学中心的主任列昂纳德·萨克西令人信服地解释了测谎器的弱点。他说，测谎器不是谎言测定器，而是一种恐惧测定器。如果人们害怕机器会暴露他们撒谎的真相，他们会产生机器报告出来的恐惧反应——可是，如果他们不相信测谎器能够这样，他们会照样撒谎而不担心，而机器会说他们一直是在讲真话。 由于测谎器不可靠，其有效与否也值得疑问，大多数法庭并不经常把结果当作证据，而心理学家们也很少做测谎测试。（一般来说，只有一些自称“测谎者”的人才经常做这些实验。）可是，几乎有一半的州承认这些测试的结果，如果起诉方和辩护方事先都同意这样做的话。在马萨诸塞、新墨西哥，偶尔还有其它一些州里，辩护方可以在起诉方提出异议的情况下引用测谎结果，假设这些数据“发生在辩护过程之前”的话。 原告和被告有时候会在庭审之前进行测谎试验，如果结果对各自有利，他们会把情况向新闻界公布。结果并不会成为证据，但公众，也许还有该案陪审团的成员，会在这些所谓的证据的基础上形成一个意见。 陪审团员的科学选择：这种法庭心理学应用的社会价值是值得怀疑的。其提倡者宣称，这会使陪审团审判更公平一些，可是，它的目的是要选择一些预计会偏向心理学家的客户的陪审团员。 陪审团员的科学选择只有20来年的历史，它是一种特别服务，会花费原告或者被告5－25万美元不等的费用。当然，它主要用在重大索赔诉讼和关键民权案中。这种服务大多是由市场调研及管理顾问公司提供的，他们拥有自己的雇员，或者临时聘用社会学家和心理学家，用他们的研究结果给客户的律师提供有关应该选择或者避开何种陪审团员等的信息。 当然，律师本人也有经验，知道在不同的案件中应该选择哪些不同的陪审团员，他们使用预备询问法（对可能陪审团员的预先询问）选择他们认为不会偏向反对——或者更好的——会偏袒其客户的陪审团员。这个办法之所以是相对公平的，是因为双方都可以询问每一个候选人，以便选择或者避开他或者她。陪审团员的科学选择给这种过程增加了暗中收集到的信息，它关系到可能陪审团员的性格特征和背景特征，专家可以据此提出比律师提出的准确得多的预测，即他们会对涉案双方如何反应。 这种方法很早但仍然处在使用中的一个例子，是1975年由辩护方进行的一次陪审团员科学选择。当时，一位黑人囚犯琼恩·利多声称被一名监狱看守强奸，然后用冰铲杀害了看守。为辩护方工作的一组社会学家和心理学家首先进行了人口统计。他们确认，案发地北卡罗莱那波福县的人口中，有百分之三十是黑人，可是，陪审团里只有百分之十三点五的黑人，因此，他们向辩护律师提出了上述意见。因为这个原因及其它一些原因，法官批准了辩护方要求更改审判地的动议。 在新审判地，研究小组进行了一项社区调查，以了解当地人对刑事犯罪辩护方的态度。他们利用社会心理学方法分析了数据，并得出了“好”、“环”陪审团员的大致情况。比如，黑人妇女和至少受过大学教育的年轻民主党人，其拥有的社会价值观和对利多的案件的看法，多半有可能会使他们偏向于同情她。 下个阶段完全是心理学上的。一位人体语言专家在预备询问中观察了有可能成为陪审团员的人，根据他们的姿势、动作、眼部接触、声带音调和讲话时的犹豫程度判断他们的求实精神和焦虑水平。（有些陪审团员研究人员，还把可以指示陪审团员是在理性还是感情基础上作出决定等的特征包括在考虑之中。）人体语言专家把他的评估交给律师，律师把这些建议和来自社区调查的态度情况当作选择或者避开一些陪审团员的基础。尽管起诉方极力反对，但所选择的陪审团员最后还是完全偏向利多一边的，经过五星期的审判后，全体陪审团员都认定她无罪。 在其它一些审判中，陪审团员科学选择减少了许多未知的情况，他们为选择过程增加了许多预计的情况，都基于特定陪审团员对大公司、左派分子、寡妇、黑人、竞争性市场营销、警方、同性恋、因事故致残的截瘫病人等的态度。 这样一来，陪审团员的科学选择就与辩护方必须由一个公平地，有代表性地选择来的人群进行判断的原则发生了直接的冲突。如一位陪审团研究者率直所言：“任何告诉你说陪审团员的选择是为了找到一个公平的陪审团的人都在撒谎。律师希望找到一个有利他这边的陪审团——否则，他们可真是太笨了——而陪审团的寻找也为他们提供了一条合理的办法。”根据陪审团员可预测的行为来选择陪审团员，这会暗中破坏陪审团审判的道德基础。 快淹死的人连稻草也抓，人逢乱世必定求助于神灵的力量以获拯救。这也许就能够解释为什么最近几年以来迷信盛行，妖气挡道了。新时代的人迷信神秘的信仰、功法和江湖秘方，因为据说这些东西能够给我们以超人的力量、健康、安宁、顿悟和喜悦：金字塔的魔力、晶体的神力、香气疗法、灵魂转世、外星信息、通灵、意念发功等等。 同样，最近几年，一些非正统的心理学学说和实践都宣称可以延伸人类心灵的力量，它们远远胜过主流科学心理学受欢迎的程度。问题在于，心理学中的这些旁门邪道是这门传统科学的延伸，或者像催眠术和颅相学一样是伪科学的种种变形，专门欺骗那些木头木脑的傻子。 相信和不相信的人都有大量的证据证明自己的观点，可是，我们可以走一条捷径，即我们可以依靠前面提到过的两篇报告，也就是美国研究委员会成立的调查小组——人类效能强化技巧委员会分别于1988年和1991年发表的研究报告。这个委员会的目标不是要去揭穿不同的心理学技巧，而是要给美国陆军提供建议，因为陆军可以借用人类能力的延伸而受益，这就证明这种研究是有效的。在这里，我们以小结的形式谈一谈这个委员会对一些叫买得很凶的技巧的研究发现： 潜意识自我帮助：最近几年以来，通过邮购和超级市场及书店货架进行的潜意识自我帮助磁带的年销量已经超过5000万美元。出品人宣称，使用这些方法，人们可以减轻痛苦，戒烟，控制饮食，增强自信心，消除压抑心情，治愈阳萎阴冷，还可以达到其它有价值的目的。 与潜意识广告不一样，这些包含在磁带中的信息不是以微秒形式，而是以正常速度传达出来的，尽管它们都藏在音乐、海浪轻轻的拍击声或者其它掩饰性的声音里。据称能增强自信心的一盘磁带也许在这样一些声音的掩盖下，包含着不为人知觉的重复信息：“我每天都越来越相信自己了。”其中的理由是，隐藏的信息是通过无意识感觉到的，它能够有力地影响使用者的感觉、思想和行为。 该委员会研究过的最广泛的一项实验是一种双盲实验。志愿者要进行记忆力和自我信心测试，然后在五个星期的时间内使用通过商业手段生产出来的潜意识自我帮助磁带，不管是用于增强记忆力的，还是用于提高自信心的，再后进行重新测试。他们不知道的是，只有半数的人得到了他们认为的那种磁带，另一半人中，被告知他们拿到的是可以增强自信心的磁带实际上是用于增强记忆力的，反过来也是一样。 所有这些实验组得到的结果显示，这些磁带“没有产生可感知的效果，不管是肯定的还是否定的，也不管是在提高自信心方面还是在增强记忆力方面，可是，许多信仰者却不这么认为”。另一个进行了类似研究的小组不那么谨慎地说，潜意识自我帮助音带是“哄人的”，是“完全的骗局”。 睡眠期学习：从1916年到70年代，一批心理学家尝试过对一些处在睡眠中的人小声地播放需要学习的材料。其理论是，这些材料将会在无意识水平上被听到，因而不用费力就可以吸收。该委员会报告说，早期的研究不确定，因为没有铁的证据证明受试者的确是睡着了。可是，后来的研究涉及使用脑电图显示出来的阿尔法脑波活动，以证明睡眠者的确处于熟睡之中，但这些研究得出的结果却是否定的，并没有发生什么学习过程。 然而，总是还有证据存在，证明学习有可能在较轻度的睡眠中发生。几年以前，有一位研究者对嗜好咬手指甲的人进行过治疗。他在这些人夜晚熟睡期间播放一句话的录音：“我的指甲咬起来味道真怪。”每晚播放3O0次，一连播放54个夜晚。有百分之四十的人不再咬指甲了。可能的解释是：由于大部分人在睡眠中有不同程度的级别变化，较轻度的睡眠期间有可能发生学习过程。该委员会的结论是： 本委员会没有找到证据可以提示在能检测的睡眠中发生了学习过程（通过脑活动的电子记录加以确认）。可是，正要醒来时的知觉和对语言材料的解释，可以通过在较轻的睡眠阶段提供该材料而加以很大改变。我们的结论是，对在睡眠期间提供的材料是否存在学习过程，以及学习和回忆的程度，都需要重新加以检测。 神经语言学教程（NLP）：这套办法原来是由两位值得尊敬的心理治疗师理查德·班德勒和约翰·格兰因德设计出来的。目前，许多人和一些公司都在极力推销该方法，声称它能培训一套相当有价值的技能。培训者通过NLP培训点、专题讲座和一些学校讲授该法，使其成为热门生意。 NLP的使用据说可以增强人们与他人相处的影响力和有效性。其核心概念是，人们在进行心理和生理活动时，会利用特别的感觉系统——视觉的、听觉的、触觉的等等——来想象正在处理的材料。按照NLP的说法，人们最容易受到一些以自己喜欢，或者当时正在使用着的表现方法表现出来的材料的影响。接受NLP培训的人依靠像眼球运动、姿态及呼吸频率和语言等的暗示。他或者她依靠这个信息进行“模拟”（模拟其他人的身姿、呼吸率和比喻的选择），“入定”（一种条件形成，以引发某种具体的反应），因此而扩大他或者她对其他人的思想、感觉和意见产生的影响。这种方法因为明显的原因而对一些董事、经理和销售人员特别有吸引力。 然而，该委员会找不到任何对NLP的有效性进行的、在科学上可接受的评估，因为，如该委员会所言：“NLP的经营者、承办人和从业者都不是实验心理学家，而且也无意从事这样的研究。”现存的少数几例不彻底的研究证据“既不是中性的，也不是否定的……总体来说，到今天为止，只有很少或者根本没有任何实验证据能支待NLP假说，也不能证明其有效性。” 该委员会还说，NLP的某些部分极有可能具有某些益处，与别的人保持眼部接触，并注意他或者她对话题或者比喻的选择，无疑会改善彼此的人际交流。可是，该委员会发现，NLP的这些可能有效的部分既不是它独有的，也不一定与NLP学说有关。 生物反馈：这是指利用电子或者其它监测设备，给一个人提供有关他或者她自己的生物功能的信息，其目的是要培训这个人对一般是不自觉的过程进行有意的控制。这些不自觉的活动包括心率、血压、体温（特别是极点温度）和阿尔法波活动。 典型地讲，一位有高血压的受训者会看到一连串的血压读数，而且会以某些说不出的方法慢慢将一些无意识的过程与任何可观察到的血压下降联系起来。过一阵子后，受训者在自己也不清楚的情况下竟能有意识地让血压降下来。同样的，受试者看着能显示左脑和右脑活动的监测器，能够学会增强一种脑活动而减弱另一种脑活动。结果能改善像心算等的认知能力。接受培训者学会了降低某些具体肌肉的张力后，能够改善音乐演奏技巧，冲刺表现和手眼随动能力。 这听上去固然极动人，可是，该委员会发现，通过生物反馈而取得的效果却有严重的局限。受试者无法在压抑条件下降低自己的心率，十份肌肉松弛研究当中，只有两份显示了证据，而且没有一份显示过在压抑的情形下有什么益处。对阿尔法波活动的控制只有在一些简单的认知任务上能改善表现，而体温控制本有可能防止冻伤，但除了在受试者处于休息状态时有效外，并不能随时生效。 最后，该委员会说，不管生物反馈的确存在什么样的收效，它仍然得与其它一些代价不那么高的方法进行比较，比如确有效果的放松训练和有指导的偶像想象。该委员会引用了一项将生物反馈与放松训练进行比较的研究，发现其效果是一样的。 超心理学：几十年以来，一批很投入的超心理学家——有些是物理学家、心理学家和研究其它学科的人，还有一些是普通人——一直在进行实验，以求证像超感官知觉（ESP）、超人透视（能看见不在跟前的物体）、意念移物（通过心理力量移动物体或者影响机械的能力）。心灵感应、异体经验、濒死经验和通灵这样一些“心灵”现象。成立于1885年的美国心灵研究会掌握着数量庞大的捐款，出版简报和杂志，还定期举行讲座，召开学术会议，组织各种集会。普林斯顿宗教研究中心是盖洛普组织的分支机构，它于1991年发表的一项综合调查发现，有近半数的美国人相信超感知觉，有四分之一的人相信心灵透视。 如果是真实的话，所有的超心理学现象都会有实际的用途（警方有时候还真的给一些会特异功能的人付钱，让他们说出失踪者的方位）。国立研究院委员会因此而参观超心理学实验室，观察他们进行的演示及实验，与一些超心理学家们讨论超心理学实验，并察看相信和不相信者双方进行的研究报告。在大量的材料中，有两个最为肯定的发现如下： ——在通过超人透视而看到远处物体的大量报告中，只有9份是科学研究报告，但9份当中的8份都有严重的错误（“发送者”已经在无意间给“接受者”提供了中间试验的线索），而第9份报告的错误不一样，但也同样严重。后来进行的更严格的研究的确得出了一些结果，可是，其结果却低于有意义的统计学水平。 ——在332例心理动力影响报告中，通过随机抽取数字而找到的188例符合某种程度的科学标准。有58例报告了有统计学意义的结果。2份最仔细和最广泛的实验使用到了随机数字发生器，它们得出了0或者1，每个在长效水平上平均为百分之五十。试图通过心理动力影响机器的受试者，在一间实验室里能够产生1当中的百分之五十点五的结果，在另一间实验室里能够产生百分之五十点零二的结果，这就是说，在一间实验室里进行的每100次实验中，有一个额外的1；而在另一间实验室里进行的每2500次实验中有两个额外的1。考虑到实验数字很大，这些结果从统计学上来讲是有意义的，但它们表示出来的却是“极微弱的效果”。 由于这就是大多数超心理学现象最有影响力的证据，该委员会的结论就是一概而论、明确无误的： 在过去130多年内进行的研究中，本委员会找不到有科学意义的证据证明超心理学现象的存在。 本委员会的观点是，最有力的科学证据也不能使存在超感观知觉——即收集有关物体或者思想的信息而又没有已知感觉机制的参与——这个结论得以成立。 当然，该委员会对这些证据所做的结论，不会动摇相信超心理学的人的信仰。可是，这还需要时间才能明白。我们可以回顾费斯丁格、里尔肯和沙切特对洪水崇拜的研究，他们抱憾地报告说，一个人如果相信什么东西，并因为该信仰而采取过行动，当他面对着一些说明他的信仰是错误的证据时，他“不仅不会对自己的信仰产生丝毫的动摇，反而比以前更加相信这些东西”。人类思维这台令整个世界产生意义的、最有力和最令人惊奇的仪器，好像也很容易为自己的错误想法而辩解。