On a slightly different note. As a teacher of psychology, I have found Epling and Pierce's theory a very provocative one, and one that I teach regularly in intro psychology classes. It has a number of strengths.
1) It is based on experiments that are very simple to describe: Two groups of rats individually housed in large exercise wheels. Both groups restricted to feeding for 1 hour a day. One group has the wheel locked, the other has the wheel free. Results: Locked wheel group adjusts to the feeding schedule and lives happily ever after. The free wheel group begins to run thousands of revolutions per day, loses weight, and if the experiment is not stopped, the animals die of exercise-induced starvation. Students quickly understand the experiment but are surprisedby the results--as were the original researchers. 2) Anorexia is not uncommon among American college students, and my classes are always interested in the topic. 3) E & P's theory works well as an example of phylogenic sources of behavior. They suggest that evolution favored species who became more active when food sources were scarce. Running to richer patches was a more effective form of foraging. Unfortunately, Frank Epling died a few years ago. I don't know whether Dave Pierce has done much more on this topic since. Stuart Vyse Connecticut College [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
