blog.bioethics.net

The original report is here. The situation is more complicated than explained in the blurb above. The students not just told to read the articles about euthanasia, but were given one of two tasks: either a mechanical editing chore or a specific instruction to read the articles carefully and consciously try to remember the arguments they used; they were then tested on retention and the affect of the articles on influencing their opinions. They were then given counter-messages (articles in favor of voluntary euthanasia) and re-tested on the degree to which receiving the counter-messages undid the change in opinion they had undergone from reading the original arguments.
The results indicated that reading the first (anti-euthanasia) arguments had no effect on opinion or retention, with or without caffeine, for the students who were given the simple editing task without being told to concentrate carefully. However, reading the first argument with careful concentration did improve both retention of the arguments and a change in the students’ opinions; the effect was present in both the caffeinated and the no-caff groups, but it was greater with caffeine. Then, after reading the counter-arguments, students who did not take caffeine reverted their opinions back to their original opinions, but students who did take caffeine were not affected by the counter-messages and retained the new opinions they had adopted after reading the first arguments.
The researchers attribute this to the differential affect of initial arguments and counter-messages: apparently, there is a theory in psychology that when people are exposed to new information, they tend to favor the first message they hear, which sets up a defense in their minds against a counter-message that they hear afterwards.
Interestingly, in the above experiment this effect was not observed for the non-caffeine group, but the caffeinated group did show a defensive effect against the counter-message. This seems to me just as important a result from this experiment as the basic effect of the caffeine itself.
The results seem to suggest that caffeine not only aids retention of information (that one is consciously processing already), but somehow fixes it more firmly in the mind or increases one’s susceptibility to being swayed by it. The first part doesn’t seem so startling, but the latter is, to my inexpert perspective at least. It would be interesting to repeat the experiment with, say, bioethicists or others well-versed in the issue, to say whether their opinions would be more vulnerable under caffeine than those of students presumably reading about the issue seriously for the first time. I would predict the professors would not change their existing opinions even with the caffeine boost; if they did, that would suggest that the caffeine not only increases receptivity to new messages but somehow overrides existing strongly held opinions (a result that, frankly, I hope is not the case).

- by Kevin T. Keith on Jul 28, 2006 at 4:08 PM | link

Remind me to hand out cups of strong coffee to audience members at my next lecture.

- by Wesley J. Smith on Jul 29, 2006 at 2:37 AM | link

(Thoughts as I drink my Diet Mountain Dew.)If caffeine actually increases receptivito to new messages, then some of us would constantly change our minds. (Thoughts as I drink my Diet Mountain Dew.)

- by Beverly on Jul 30, 2006 at 4:56 AM | link

interesting...

- by haha on Aug 1, 2006 at 1:48 PM | link

Regardless of the effect of caffeine, bloggers should remember that ass-sted suicide for terminally ill patients (it's not really suicide) is not the same as euthanasia, the subject of this study.
Also, audiences can be swayed either way on this debate when they hear only one side. The results likely would be the same in reverse if caffeinated opponents were given strong arguments for assisted dying.

- by Tom Preston on Aug 1, 2006 at 2:40 PM | link

URL to attach to blog just sent.
Thanks

- by Tom Preston on Aug 1, 2006 at 2:41 PM | link