THOUGHT EXPERIMENTS

Abstract: This article seeks to explain how thought experiments work, and also the reasons why they can fail. It is divided into four sections. The first argues that thought experiments in philosophy and science should be treated together. The second examines existing accounts of thought experiments and shows why they are inadequate. The third proposes a better account of thought experiments. According to this account, a thought experimenter manipulates her worldview in accord with the “what if” questions posed by a thought experiment. When all necessary manipulations are carried through, the result is either a consistent model or a contradiction. If a consistent model is achieved, the thought experimenter can conclude that the scenario is possible; if a consistent model cannot be constructed, then the scenario is not possible. The fourth section of the article uses this account to shed light on the circumstances in which thought experiments fail.     

Effects of self-attributed and other-attributed gaze on interpersonal evaluations between males and females

Male and female subjects were placed together in pairs for 10 min to get to know each other and talk about anything they wished. After the conversation, an experimenter gave the participants false feedback about the amount of gaze between them during the conversation. One subject (designated Self) was reported by the experimenter to have gazed at the Other at a higher level than usual for most people, at an average level, or at a lower level than usual for most people. After the conversation and the false feedback manipulation, subjects evaluated each other on a rating form. Results of the experiment showed that females gave males the most favorable ratings when they had ostensibly gazed at the males at a high level. Males were most favorable toward females when they thought they had given the females low levels of gaze. When considering the gaze of the other person, both male and female subjects rated a low gazing partner as least attentive and a high gazing partner as most sincere. Males rated low gazing females as least attractive. Females rated males with high reported gaze as least attractive. The research was discussed in terms of Bem's theory that attitudes are a function rather than a cause of behavior. Results were integrated with past research and suggestions for further study were made.     

Compliance to requests made by gazing and touching experimenters in field settings

Two experiments supported the hypothesis that gaze and touch would serve additive functions of increasing compliance to unambiguous requests. These and other experiments were integrated into Ellsworth and Langer's (1976) framework for interpreting gaze (and touch) as nonspecific activators. It was concluded that behavioral responses to gaze and touch are a function of the attention and arousal elicited by these stimuli, the meaning derived from the situation, and the attributes of the gazing and touching person. It was suggested that future research should study subjects' responses to gaze and touch in terms of attributions made by subjects about people who engage in these behaviors.     

Effects of gaze, touch, and use of name on evaluation of “Engaged” couples

Videotapes were made of actors playing the role of engaged couples in an ostensible interview with a research psychologist. Couples either gazed at each other or did not gaze, used each other's name five times or not at all, and touched each other or did not touch. The videotaped interviews were shown to groups of introductory psychology students for ratings on ten polar adjective scales. Gaze proved to be the most important variable, with gazing couples rated significantly more positively than non-gazing couples on all dimensions. Touching couples were rated more favorably than non-touching couples and name using couples received less favorable ratings than non-name using couples. Results of the study were related to equilibrium theory and discussed within the framework of other research relating nonverbal variables to interpersonal attraction.