Book Review: Opening Skinner's Box by Lauren Slater

The idea that the human brain is some kind of complicated machine, a machine that could be analyzed by taking it apart and observing, seeing how exactly all the different parts connect and testing what each part does was first raised by the French Philosopher Rene Descartes (1596 - 1650). Prior to Descarte's time, many people in the Western world had regarded human behaviour as complex and mysterious, in most cases best understood as the result of the soul's directives and not as the product of some piece of machinery. However, after four-hundred years of observation and experimentation, we now know that, everything we do, all that we know, and everything we feel is made possible by the psychological and physiological functioning of the brain. But how did we get to this stage?

Towards the end of the 18^th century, many people argued that psychology could never be a science, because the mind simply could not be measured. However, approximately one hundred years later, Wilhelm Wundt (1832 - 1920), set up the first psychological laboratory to study aspects of sensation and perception. This was the birth of scientific psychology, and since birth, the scientific study of behaviour has thrown up numerous studies and experiments that have produced profound discoveries. The greatest of these experiments have been captured in Lauren Slater's Book, "Opening Skinners Box: Great Psychological Experiments of the Twentieth Century", which was published in 2005. It describes in a narrative form, complete with characters, plot, and emotional insights the ten psychology experiments regarded by Slater as the most significant or interesting of the 20th century. These experiments include Skinner's work on behaviorism, Milgram's demonstration of how ordinary people can be influenced to obey authority, Rosenhan's 1972 experiment in which several people pretended to be mentally ill which resulted in them gaining admittance to psychiatric hospitals, Harlow's experiments with monkeys and motherhood and Alexander's Rat Park, where laboratory rats addicted to morphine turned the drug down when given a better life. In each chapter, Slater provides a narrative account of the work, lays out its background and the events leading up to it, interviews some of the experimenters and participants, and reflects on the experiments wider implications.

Slater set about writing this book in order to detail and explain these ten experiments and their findings in a way that they could be understood in a more human context, she does this quite successfully by writing about the experiments in a narrative form rather than purely descriptive form. She writes, "The experiments described in this book, and many others, deserve to be not only reported on as research, but also celebrated as story, which is what I have tried to do", (Slater, 2004, p.3).

Another of Slater's aims in writing this book was to explain and describe each experiment in relation to the background of the researcher. In chapter one she describes Skinner's "conditioning boxes" with constant referral to his use of classical conditioning on his new born daughters. "Writing about these experiments has provided me with a chance to learn about outcomes while studying the personalities of the players who chose to investigate, for all sorts of reasons, the set of events that led them to their final data. And then to observe how that data fuelled their futures and their pasts". (Slater, 2004, p.4).

Psychology, as a science, has progresses rapidly since the time of Wilhelm Wundt and Sigmund Freud, we have now reached a period where symptoms of depression can be reduced or eliminated by the consumption of a tiny white pill, severe anxiety disorders can be diminished in minutes with new brain surgery technology. This therefore raises a big question in psychology, what significance does the study of the Id, Ego and Superego possess now? Is the idea of psychoanalysis, the study of the unconscious mind of any relevance to modern day biological psychology? The scientific study of human behaviour, some might say, is currently in a Biological Renaissance. However, it is only through the contribution of researchers like Eric Kandel and Antonio Moniz that we have came to this stage in psychological discovery and we must now look at these contributions in the context of 21^st century Psychology. This was one of Slater's goals in composing this novel. Slater writes, "In telling the stories of these experiments, I revisit them from my contemporary point of view, asking what relevance they have for us now, in this new world. Does Skinner's behaviourism still have meaning for current day neurophysiologists who can probe the neural correlates of his habit driven rats?". (Slater, 2004, p.3).

The author of this book, Lauren Slater, is an American psychologist, she is the author of six books altogether which cover a range of psychological topics. Slater was born in Boston in 1963. She graduated in 1985 from Brandeis University with a bachelor's degree in British and American literature. She earned a master's degree in psychology from Harvard University and a doctorate in psychology from Boston University. Slater wemt on to be a Knight Science Journalism Fellow at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. During the fellowship, part of the Program on Science, Technology and Society in the School of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences, her area of study was neuropsychology, psychiatric care, medical technologies, and medical ethics. Slater was a clinical psychologist for eleven years before embarking on a writing career. She was the director of AfterCare Services, a mental health and substance-abuse clinic in Boston. (www.randomhouse.com/laurenslater).

It is quite evident that Slater posesses a vast and varied background in psychology, and this can be seen through her writings. However, although her stories are rich in knowledge, her style of writing somewhat drifts away from her professional background. Slater writes in a narrative and fictional style, she uses vivid descriptions for the most simplistic things and tends to exaggerate feelings and visual descriptions. Of the ten chapters in the book, the majority of them begin with a vivid and abstract description of the town in which the researcher lived or the area in which the experiment was taking place. Is this necessary information for a book which is suppose to be explaining psychological findings? In an opening paragraph of chapter two, Slater writes, "Possibly you are late. You are running down a small side street in New Haven, Connecticut. It is June 1961, and ahead of you loom the spires of the Yale Episcopalian Church. The streets smell of summer, wet crushed flowers and spoiled fruit, and maybe, because of this, you feel a little ill. In anticipation. Because of the odor. Something sweet and singed in the air". (Slater, 2004, p.33).

Is this description really relevant taking into consideration that Slater then goes on to describe Stanley Milgram's 1961 obidience experiment which somewhat shows that people are willing to let a person die, for no good reason, under the pressure of an authoritative figure. One might argue that Slater utilizes this narrative style in order to engage fictionally with the reader, but these are real life experiments, experiments which produced profound discoveries in the study of human behaviour, do they really need fictional narrative? The book could possibly posess more of a scientific/research label if it had not been written in such a story-like style. Slater's personal response to this criticism reads as follows, "Our lives after all, are not data points and means and modes; they are stories - absorbed, reconfigured, rewritten. We must fully integrate that which is told as tale. My hope is that some of these experiments will be more fully taken in by readers now that they have been translated into narrative form". (Slater, 2004, p.3). This is a fair argument on behalf of Slater, but nevertheless, this style of writing has not been digested well by the readers. This is one of the main criticisms of Slater's book.

However, there are alternative views on this criticism, lacking they may be but still relevant. Unlike the majority, some people quite enjoyed and embraced Slater's narrative style of writing. It has been viewed by many as incorporating a dimension of fun and excitement into what is seen to be dull and gloomy research. Some may perceive it as turning science into art. Joy Press, an author for the Village Voice New York, published an article in 2004 praising Slater's work. She writes. "With her knack for concocting juicy tales out of desiccated scientific research, Slater has a great future as a popularizer of academic ideas. She swaddles history in personal anecdote and investigative journalism. (After all, our lives "are not data points and means and modes, they are stories."). (www.lynn.edu/proquest). Another well known criticism of Slater's work is that she has the tendency to fabricate her stories and findings. Since the book has been written, numerous allegations of fabrication and dishonesty have been reported. Slater tends to write not only about the researchers but in some cases about their personal and dramatic life events, and in these cases her details have been proven to be untrue. One story which has serious allegations of dishonesty is that when Slater tells us of her contact with Skinner's first daughter Deborah. Slater describes a phone call to Deborah where they discuss the life work of Skinner. It has been reported that Deborah has infact denied having had such phone call. This casts doubt over the honesty of Slater's writings.

One aspect of the book that can be found engaging and interesting is Slater's attempts to replicate some of the featured experiments on herself. Chapter three, titlled, "On being sane in insane places" covers the research findings of the work of David Rosenhan in the early 1970's. Rosenhan recruited several participants and requested that they fake having a mental illness in order to investigate if they would be incorrectly diagnosed and institutionalised. The results showed that all of the pseudopatients, including Rosenhan, were diagnosed as having a mental disorder and were immediately institutionalised. These findings sparked a bomb of controversy over the efficiency of psychological diagnosis. While researching this experiment, Slater attempted to replicate this expermient herself. Slater takes us step by step through her experience, documenting her feelings of anxiety and reluctancy as she presented herself to a psychiatrist. She writes, " He dissapers. He is going to get the psychiatrist. My pulse goes from 100 to 150 at least. I can feel it. For surely the psychiatrist will see right through me, or worse, he will wind up being someone I know from highschool, and how will I explain myself". (Slater, 2004, p.86).

As Slater takes us through her replications, were given a first hand look at how it feels to be involved in such an experiment. We are given a more in depth emotional description of the outcomes of the experiment which is coming right from the participant herself. In comparison to reading the results section of an experimental journal, this kind of analysis is seen in a more humanistic light. In Slater's replications, we are given an emotional analysis rather than the usual nominal, emotion-lacking results of an Independent t-test or a Repeated Anova. This kind of information is more valued by readers as it makes it significantly easier to relate to the experiment. In chapter seven, Slater herself experiments with drug addiction when she decides to take a set of hydromorphone pills for fifty-seven days and then records her feelings when she stops. She writes, "My stomach starts to hurt. For me, the morphine is like a difficult dessert, unpleasent to get down, fun to actually digest, but altogether unremarkable. Id rather have dinner with a friend then sentimentalize a seagull, in the end. And, after fourteen days, when I stop abruptly, I am a little cranky and stuffy in my nose, but who knows, my kids got the flu". (Slater, 2004, p.178).

Slater's book is most certainly debatable as to whether it is a productive psychological novel. Its seen by some as unnecessarily descriptive and abstract, its seen by the opposing as being beatifully narrated and artistic. Many believe it is fabricated with exaggerations and lies. However, it seems that the practicality of this book has been somewhat overshadowed by allegations and complaints. Slater's book captures the essence of ten of the most significant experiments in psychology from the twentieth century. These experiments are presented, in detail, in individual concise chapters in a relatively small book. Slaters approach to the experiments makes the book very readable by students. She breaks away from the complex language typically used in advanced psychological research and presents her descriptions in an easily understandable narrative. This is ideal material for a student wishing to gain an understanding of these experiments.

Taking into consideration Slater's abnormal writing style, the allegations of fabrication, her controversial experiment replications, this book is undeniably a "good read". Opening Skinners Box: Great Psychological Experiments of the Twentieth Century, most definitely a must read for anybody with an interest in psychology.

"We seek out answers. We try this and that. We love and work. We kill and remember. We live our lives, each one a divine hypothesis". (Slater, 2004).