At 10:13 PM 01/05/05 -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:At 09:59 PM Sunday 5/1/2005, Keith Henson wrote:At 09:37 PM 01/05/05 -0500, Dan Minette wrote:
snip
With all due respect, Keith, how familiar are you with the literature on abusers returning to their spouse? I understand why you want to explain everything in terms of evolutionary psychology, but I tend to be biased more towards experimental studies than broad theoretical statements.
I was rather up on this area of study a few years ago.
Are you aware of any studies that don't support this EP model?
Also, I presume you don't really mean there have been experimental studies. I can't imagine an ethics committee permitting the behavior that activates capture bonding/Stockholm syndrome.
Huh? Even I have heard of the so-called "psychology experiments" where one group is assigned the role of "prison guards" and the other group is assigned the role of "prisoners" and ae within a few days at most the researchers see the second group develop "Stockholm syndrome" toward the first group, who generally don't take long at all to become abusive toward the members of the second group . . .
It's here: http://www.prisonexp.org/ and very worthwhile to read. The experiment was done in August of 1971. They would not have described any effects as "Stockholm syndrome" since the event that gave this psychological phenomena it's name didn't happen until two years later in August of 1973.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome
It is generally agreed that experiments like the prison experiment and those of Stanley Milgram obedience experiments would not get past an ethics committee today.
The point is, however, that such "experimental studies" have done and that the results showed what was later named the "Stockholm syndrome." And, as I believe has been discussed at length in this forum, "ethics" is a term whose meaning is quite variable in both space and time.
-- Ronn! :)
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
