Abstract
A popular measurement heuristic called the “Dead Man Test” predicts that behavior will be absent in vitality-challenged individuals. Unfortunately, the core idea behind the Test lacks empirical support, is hopelessly vague on several counts, and may be at odds with key aspects of behavior theory. This raises serious concerns about whether the Test should continue to be employed as a guide to behavioral measurement.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
At least not in the sense of Skinner’s (1938) objective definition: “the movement of an organism or of its parts in a frame of reference provided by the organism itself or by various external objects or fields” (p. 6).
Lindsley (1991) recalled devising the test in 1965 while concerned about the target behaviors that school personnel were selecting for behavior management interventions: “If a dead boy could do it, it wasn’t behavior; we should not spend valuable school funds teaching children to play dead” (p. 457).
This is an extremely serious matter given that unfalsifiable claims are one of the hallmarks of pseudoscience (Normand, 2008).
Consider, for instance, the proverbial chicken running around with its head cut off, or scientific data on the continued activity of decapitated cockroaches (Choi, 2007).
This poor reliability may be illustrated by the detection, through functional magnetic resonance imaging technology, of apparent neural activity in an Atlantic salmon that had been diagnosed as deceased (Bennett, Baird, Miller, & Wolford, 2011).
Hypothesized categories include but are not limited to zombies, ghosts, golems, vampires, and psychological theories whose popularity is not attenuated by contrary evidence (Ferguson & Heene, 2012).
A common feature of pseudoscience is presenting as “evidence” an idea’s endorsement by a famous “expert” (Hines, 1993). Lindsley certainly qualifies as an expert on applied behavioral measurement but his endorsement of the DMT does not make it valid.
References
Agthong, S., & Wiwanitkit, V. (2002). Cadaver donation: a retrospective review at the King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Bangkok. Southeast Asian Journal of Tropical Medicine and Public Health, 33, 166–167.
Andjus, R. K., Knöpfelmacher, F., Russell, R. W., & Smith, A. U. (1956). Some effects of severe hypothermia on learning and retention. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology B, 8, 15–23. doi:10.1080/17470215608416797.
Arriaza, B. T. (1995). Beyond death: the Chinchorro mummies of ancient Chile. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution. doi:10.2307/971700.
Baer, D. M., Wolf, M. M., & Risley, T. R. (1968). Some current dimensions of applied behavior analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 91–97. doi:10.1901/jaba.1968.1-91.
Becker, G. S., & Elias, J. J. (2007). Introducing incentives in the market for live and cadaveric organ donations. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21, 3–24. doi:10.1257/jep.21.3.3.
Bennett, C. M., Baird, A. A., Miller, M. B., & Wolford, G. L. (2011). Neural correlates of interspecies perspective taking in the post-mortem Atlantic salmon: an argument for proper multiple comparisons correction. Journal of Serendipitous and Unexpected Results, 1, 1–5. Note: The journal is out of print, but a poster on which the article is based can be downloaded from http://users.stat.umn.edu/∼corbett/classes/5303/Bennett-Salmon-2009.pdf.
Blackwelder, W. C. (1982). “Proving the null hypothesis” in clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials, 3, 345–353. doi:10.1016/0197-2456(82)90024-1.
Boring, E. G. (1953). A history of introspection. Psychological Bulletin, 50, 169–189. doi:10.1037/h0090793.
Brooks, M. (2003). The zombie survival guide: complete protection from the living dead. New York: Three Rivers Press.
Bruner, J., & Feldman, C. F. (1990). Metaphors of consciousness and cognition in the history of psychology. In D. E. Leary (Ed.), Metaphors in the history of psychology (pp. 230–238). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Byrne, T., & Poling, A. (2000). Introduction to behavioral pharmacology. Reno: Context Press.
Chesterton, G. K. (1923). Fancies and fads. London: Methuen.
Choi, C. (2007). Can a cockroach live without its head? Scientific American, 297, 116. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican1107-118.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press. doi:10.2307/2270781.
Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2007). Applied behavior analysis (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson.
Critchfield, T. S. (2014). Skeptic’s corner—punishment: destructive force or valuable social “adhesive”? Behavior Analysis in Practice, 7, 36–44. doi:10.1007/s40617-014-0005-4.
Critchfield, T.S., & Shue, E.Z.H. (in press). The dead man test: a preliminary experimental analysis. Experimental Analysis of Human Behavior Bulletin.
Dickey, C. (2010). Crankiolepty: grave robbing and the search for genius (Reprintth ed.). Lakewood: Unbridled Books.
Eisenberg, M. S. (2005). History of the science of cardiopulmonary resuscitation. In J. P. Ornato & M. A. Peberdy (Eds.), Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (pp. 1–9). Totowa: Humana Press. doi:10.1385/1-59259-814-5:001.
Ferguson, C. J., & Heene, M. (2012). A vast graveyard of undead theories publication bias and psychological science’s aversion to the null. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 555–561. doi:10.1177/1745691612459059.
Forsyth, J. P., & Sheppard, S. C. (2008). Behavior therapy and behavior analysis: overview and third-generation perspectives. In D. C. S. Richard & S. K. Huprich (Eds.), Clinical psychology: assessment, treatment, and research (pp. 249–280). Burlington: Elsevier.
Freud, S. (1900). The interpretation of dreams. London: Hogarth.
Fuller, P. R. (1949). Operant conditioning of a vegetative human organism. American Journal of Psychology, 62, 587–590. doi:10.2307/1418565.
Galton, F. (1894). Natural inheritance. New York: Macmillan. doi:10.5962/bhl.title.46339.
Gorvett, Z. (2016). The macabre fate of “beating heart corpses.” BBC Future. Download from http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20161103-the-macabre-fate-of-beating-heart-corpses.
Hines, T. (1993). Pseudoscience and the paranormal. New York: Prometheus Books.
Johnston, J. M., & Pennypacker, H. S. (1981). Strategies and tactics of behavioral research. Hillsdale: Erlbaim.
Kazdin, A. E. (1999). The meanings and measurement of clinical significance. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 332–339. doi:10.1037//0022-006x.67.3.332.
Lanphier, E., Urnov, F., Haecker, S. E., Werner, M., & Smolenski, J. (2015). Don’t edit the human germ line. Nature, 519, 410–411. doi:10.1038/519410a.
Lindsley, O. R. (1991). From technical jargon to plain English for application. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 449–458. doi:10.1901/jaba.1991.24-449.
Malott, R. W., & Trojan Suarez, E. A. (2004). Principles of behavior (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall.
McFarlane, S. (2014). A million ways to die in the West. New York: Ballantine.
Modrak, D. K. W. (2009). Aristotle’s De Anima. Ancient Philosophy, 29, 441–446. doi:10.5840/ancientphil200929240.
Normand, M. P. (2008). Science, skepticism, and applied behavior analysis. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 1(2), 42–49.
Pelegrino, E. D. (2008). Controversies in the determination of death: a white paper by the President’s Council on Bioethics. Washington, DC: President’s Council on Bioethics. doi:10.1037/e600712009-001.
Pilgrim, C. (1998). The human subject. In K. A. Lattal & M. Perone (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in human operant behavior (pp. 15–44). New York: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-1947-2_2.
Rouleau, N., Karbowski, L. M., & Persinger, M. A. (2016). Experimental evidence of classical conditioning and microscopic engrams in an electroconductive material. PLoS ONE, 11(10), e0165269. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0165269.
Sedlmeier, P., & Gigerenzer, G. (1989). Do studies of statistical power have an effect on the power of studies? Psychological Bulletin, 105, 309–316. doi:10.1037//0033-2909.105.2.309.
Sidman, M. (1960). Tactics of scientific research. New York: Basic Books. doi:10.1086/287901.
Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms: an experimental analysis. New York: Appleton-Century. doi:10.2307/1416495.
Skinner, B. F. (1956). A case history in scientific method. American Psychologist, 11, 221–233. doi:10.1037/h0047662.
Skinner, B. F. (1966). The phylogeny and ontogeny of behavior. Science, 153, 1205–1213. doi:10.1126/science.153.3741.1205.
Skinner, B. F. (1987). Why we are not acting to save the world. In B. F. Skinner (Ed.), Upon further reflection (pp. 1–14). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Stein, L., & Beluzzi, J. D. (1988). Operant conditioning of individual neurons. In M. L. Commons, R. M. Church, J. R. Stellar, & A. R. Wagner (Eds.), Biological determinants of reinforcement (pp. 249–264). New York: Erlbaum.
Stephens, W. (1998). Witches who steal penises: impotence and illusion in Malleus Maleficarum. Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies, 28, 495–529.
Streiner, D. L. (2003). Unicorns do exist: a tutorial on “proving” the null hypothesis. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 48, 756–761.
Susser, M. (1986). The logic of Sir Karl Popper and the practice of epidemiology. American Journal of Epidemiology, 124, 711–718.
Tatham, T. A., & Wanchisen, B. A. (1998). Behavioral history: a definition and some common findings from two areas of research. Behavior Analyst, 21, 241–251.
Verstynen, T., & Voytek, B. (2014). Do zombies dream of undead sheep? A neuroscientific view of the zombie brain. Princeton: Princeton University Press. doi:10.1515/9781400851928.
Weiss, B. (2012). Behavioral toxicology (Reprintth ed.). New York: Springer.
Winett, R. A., & Winkler, R. C. (1972). Current behavior modification in the classroom: be still, be quiet, be docile. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 5, 499–504. doi:10.1901/jaba.1972.5-499.
Wolf, M. M. (1978). Social validity: the case for subjective measurement or how applied behavior analysis is finding its heart. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 203–214. doi:10.1901/jaba.1978.11-203.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethical Considerations
Ethical oversight: The work does not describe primary research by the author involving either human participants or vertebrate animal subjects and therefore is not subject to oversight by a research ethics committee.
Conflict of Interest
The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Portions of this article are based on the following non-copyrighted report: Critchfield, T.S., & Shue, E.Z.H. (in press). The Dead Man Test: A preliminary experimental analysis. Experimental Analysis of Human Behavior Bulletin.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Critchfield, T.S. Requiem for the Dead Man Test?. BEHAV ANALYST 40, 539–548 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-016-0082-5
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-016-0082-5