ML20073R326

Testimony of RR Holt Re Sample Surveys & Bystander Behavior

ML20073R326
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	04/19/1983
From:	Holt R NEW YORK, NY, PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP, NEW YORK, UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS
To:
Shared Package
ML20073R287	List: ML20073R305 ML20073R326 ML20073R332 ML20073R347 ML20073R351 ML20073R353
References
ISSUANCES-SP, NUDOCS 8305030629
Download: ML20073R326 (37)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l

i BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD ,

5 i In the Matter of )

)

CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK ) Docket Nos. 50-247 SP (Indian Point Unit 2) ) 50-286 SP -

l POWER AUTiiORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK April 19, 1983 i (Indian Point Unit 3) ) t 1 1 l

r l TESTIMONY SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF f

UCS/NYPIRG AND MEMBERS OF THE NEW i YORK CITY COUNCIL By '

l ROBERT R. HOLT r

i 1

j This Document Has Been Filed By:

Amanda Potterfield, Esq. Craig Kaplan, Esq. j New York Public Interest Research National Emergency Civil  ;

Group, Inc. Liberties Committee 9 Murray St., 3rd Floor 175 Fifth Avenue, Suite 712 i i New York, New York 10007 New York, New York 10010 212-349-6460 212-673-2040 l For UCS and NYPIRG For Members of the New i York City Council i

i I

i EXHIBIT B ,

! 8305030629 830419 i PDR ADOCK 05000247  !

O PDR

4 i

l 1

My name is Robert R. Holt. I am Professor of Psychology at

! New York University; my specialties are clinical and social psychology.

I Before obtaining my Ph.D. in psychology at Harvard University, I worked i

l as an intervieuer for the Elmo Roper organization and briefly ran a

small independent polling organization, the New England Public Opinion

}

Research Association. My first post Ph.D. job was as a Study Director in the Division of Program Surveys, B. A.E. , in the U.S. Department of l Agriculture. Af ter World War II, I learned clinical psychology at

} the Menninger Foundation in Topeka, Kansas, where I subsequently became Director of the Psychological Staff. Since 1953, I have been at New York University, where I founded the Research Center for Mental Health, and directed it for about fifteen years. A principal theme of my i scientific work has been the prediction of human behavior, on which '

l I have published several papers and a book, Methods in C1 Lnical Psychology, Vol. II: Prediction and Research, New York: Plenum (1978).

I participated in the discussion of psychological stress in the

! area of the Three Mile Island nuclear power plants in McLean, Virginia, ,

held by the MITRE Corporation, and was asked to prepare a commentary on l that discussion presenting my theory of the impact of radiological accidents on psychological health. This commentary was submitted to che Nuclear Regulatory Commission and appears in NUREG/CP-0026. I also l made a thorough study of the relevant research on the TMI accident, and l

j most recently was invited to present a survey of that material at the 1

! International Forum on Nuclear Energy in Middletown, Pennsylvania, March t

28-30, 1983.

4  ?

I i

e I have been asked to comment in this testimony on: a) the utility of sample surveys as a means of predicting humar. behavior in general, and of predicting Ge responses of people to an accident at Indian Point in particular; and, b) on the research literature on " bystander behavior".

I have been given to read the testimony presented in this proceeding on these subjects by Drs. Lecker and Dynes.

A The Utility of Sample Surveys Surveys typically collect several types of data:

a) factual information that can be directly reported, (for example, "Have you received an information brochure about Indian Point?");

b) knowledge possessed by the respondent, indicating

! his or her degree of acquaintance with relevant data, (for example, "What are you supposed to do if you hear a siren warning of an accident at Indian Point?");

c) beliefs, (for example, "Can radiation cause cancer?");

d) attitudes, (for example, "How much trust do you have in statements about nuclear power made by Con Edison?");

e) values, (for example, "Which is more important, a man's duty to his job, or to his f amily?");

f) statements of intention, (for example, "What do you plan to do to prepare your family for a possible evacuation of this area?"); and, g) statements of probable future behavior under hypothetical circumstances, (for example, "What would you do if there were an accident at Indian Point and people within 5 miles were advised to stay indoors with windows shut?") .

It should be svident that no sharp dividing lines can be drawn between these classes of questions and the kinds of data they provide.

Moreover, the above listing is not exhaustive or definitive. My point is to illustrate some of the many kinds of data that can be obtained from surveys, and to suggest that such data play different roles in a scientific attempt to predict behavior. Consider the issue of greatest interest, be-havior at the time of a possible accident serious enough to require the evacuation of a given region.

One possible way to go about it is to ask people directly to predict what they would do, for example, if asked to evacuate. Ordinarily, a psychologist or sociologist does not take the responses at face value, translating them directly into his own predictions. In predicting elections, for example, the forecaster often does not report the raw percentages, but takes into account the degree of a respondent's declared intention to vote the strength of feeling for and against the candidates, and trends over time (which may affect the interpretation of the undecided vote) . Similarly, in attempting to predict how well an evacuation plan could be carried out, one probably would want to use information of all the kinds just described, and not simply rely on the respondents' own predictions.

As to the validity of information gained from surveys, it is difficult to give a simple answer, since the kinds of information are so variegated.

Sample surveys are in onny respects like a census, except that they use l

l statistical sampling techniques to draw representative small groups of a population of interest from whose responses predictions accurately can be l

made about an entire population. The technology of sampling is highly l

developed and amazingly precise. Even 40 years ago, when I was conducting surveys of the American public's buying of war bonds for the U. S. Treasury Department, we were able to draw samples of about 1,000 respondents and project from their answers the amount of bonds sold in a drive to within a few percentage points. The basic technique of probability sampling is to give every member of a population an equal chance to be included. And that can be done so accurately that the degree of precision attained is a simple function of the number of persons in the sample.

In recent years, methodological research has shown that a popula-tion can be sampled to a degree of adequacy satisfactory for most purposes by taking a sample of telephone numbers, since 97% of households in the U. S. now have telephones. The validity of data obtained by this cost-effective method has proved to be equal to that from f ace-to-f ace interviews.

When it comes to obtaining demographic information, like the number of families having children in school, the numbers of persons in an area who own cars or who live alone, there simply is no better way to find out than to ask people as a census does. The amount of lying or dissimulation on most items of information that are not self-incriminating is truly negligible. There can hardly be any doubt that emergency planning could be carried out more effectively in the presence of full information of this relatively objective kind than without it. Unfortunately, the U. S.

Census does not provide a great deal of the kinds of information needed.

For example, the census does not tell how many persons in the EPZ do not have a fluent grasp of spoken or written English; hence, we do not know how many pecple would be unable to read the information brochures dis-tributed by the licenctes or to understand emergency instructions given in English over the EBS. The only feasible way to estimate the size of

l the problem is a sample survey.

Likewise, there is no better way to encertain a person's beliefs than to ask him or her directly. Values and attitudes can to some extent be inferred indirectly from observations of behavior, but few psychologists would rely wholly on such observations if it were possible to ask questions.

Statements of intention, especially intentions to buy or save, are considered such a valuable basis for economic prediction that both the l

government and industry have invested a good deal of monty in annual surveys of spending and saving behavior. The best known are those conducted for many years under the direction of the late George Katona at the University of Michigan's Survey Research Center, which began during the years when Katona and his colleagues worked at the Division of Program Surveys in Washington. I had the privilege of working with Dr. Katona on the first of these studies.

If the question is asked, "Hcw well can overt behavior be predicted from attitudes?" an answer is given by Cialdini, Petty and Cacioppo (1981) in the authoritative Annual Survey of Psychology. They write: The attitude-behavior problem has continued to generate a great deal of research, but no longer are researchers questioning jj; attitudes predict behaviors, they are investigating when attitudes predict behaviors. ... attitudes have a great deal of predictive utility." The research of Ajzen and Fishbein (1977) in particular shows that poor results in past studies are largely attributable to a failure to zero in on the particular behavior precisely enough. Thus, one could not predict very accurately how many people would evacuate an area in case of a specific accident scenario on the basis of answers to a general question about attitudes toward nuclear power. Asking something like, "What would you do--go about your usual business, stay indoors, or leave the area--

f

in case of an accident at Indian Point?" would permit somewhat more accurate prediction tecause it would match the behavior in terms of what Ajzen and Fishbein call action (the specific act of evacuating) and context (that of an accident at Indian Point), but is still vague on target and time, and the context lacks specificity. The Suffolk County survey is exemplary in this respect, fcr (in terms of context) it spells out a series of precise accident snenarios, and in follow-up questions it clarifies target (where the respondent would go and by what means). Only the time referent is necessarily unspecified; it is doubtful that it would have made much differ-ence if the question had included something like this: " Suppose that Shoreham were to start operations next month, and three weeks later there were an accident..."

In short, it means nothing to invoke a vague concept of " authenticity,"

when research has zeroed in on the specific aspects of behavior that must be invoked in a question to maximize predictability. Indeed, when there is a good match between attitude questions and the behavior being predicted as to action, target, context, and time , it is possible to predict behavior in situations the respondent has not yet experienced. The objection by Drs.

Lecker and Dynes to the use of sample surveys to aid in emergency planning on the ground that the situation is too hypothetical thus lacks cogency.

l Consider the Suffolk County survey: questions about hypothetical accidents at Shoreham produced a set of answers about expected evacuction behavior that show a close match to the actual number and pattern of spontaneous i

l evacuation during the Three Mile Island emergency. That is rather strong l

l t

evidence for their presumptive validity.

The Suffolk-Shoreham study gives a good example of the difference made by specificity concerning the hypothetical situation. In the first scenario presented, respondentr. were asked to imagine that as a result of l

an accident at the Shoreham nuclear plant, persons with 5 miles of the plant were advised to, remain indoors; 40% of those surveyed living within that area said that they would evacuate, plus 40% of those living from 6 to 10 miles from the plant. When the scenario closely matched the actual accident at TMI (pregnant women and pre-school children asked to evacuate within 5 miles, those from 6 to 10 miles advised to remain indoors), the percentages indicating they would leave the region went up to 57 and 52.

These rather closely match the actual figures obtained by Flynn (1979) in a telephone survey at TMI: within 5 miles, 60% evacuated and from 6 to 10 miles , 44%. (In the next more remote zone, the figures are 30% for Shoreham and 32% for TMI--a close correspondence, even though the areas were not defined in exactly the same way.) Note also that Houts et al. (1981) report "approximately 60 percent" of the respondents in their telephone survey of the 5--mile zone had evacuated. It is striking that the Suffolk results from the TMI-like scenario more closely match the actual TMI results than they do the results from their own, slightly less severe, first scenario.

The TMI data are noteworthy also for the degree to which the two independent telephone curveys replicate one another, though they were done at slightly different times. Even the ressons given for leaving shoved great a3reement: Flynn Houts Situation seemed dangerous 91% 82%

Information on situation was confusing 83% 78%

To protect children 61% 50%

l To protect pregnancy 8% 8%

To avoid confusion of forced evacuation 76% 68%

Pressure from someone outside family 28% 22%

Trip planned before incident 5% 7%

Other (free response) <1% <1%

It is true that the less time elapsed between the survey and the behavior to be predicted, the better the prediction (Davidson & Jaccard, 1979; Schwartz, 1978). The implication is that surveys like the Suffolk County study need to be done frequently. I would advise an annual survey in the Indian Point area; if the results of the second study are very close to those of the first, and if relevant conditions in the area do not change markedly, a third study could be deferred somewhat.

It might be added that a considerable body of research has vali-dated Fishbein and Ajzen's (1975,1980) theory that the best predictor of behavior is the actor's intention to perform the behavior. It has been successfully applied to predicting family planning behavior (Davidson

& Jaccard,1979; Vinocur-Kaplan,1978), use of alcohol by adults (Kilty, 1978) and adolescents (Schlegel, Crawford & Sanborn,1977), and voting on a nuclear power plant initiative (Bowman & Fishbein, 1978).

The principal alternative theory attracting current research effort in this field is that of Triandis (1977,1980) . It uses a com-i bination of a person's intentions, habits (of ten measured by a record of past behavior), psychological arousal, and facilitating conditions in the environment. Though some research supports this theory, in the only direct comparison of predicticas based on the two approaches, the Fishbein-Ajzen theory proved superior in predicting students' church attendance (Brinberg , 1979) . Note that even in this alternative theory (that of Triandis,1977), predictions are based on the past behavior in the same situation of the particular persons in question, not that of other people j in other situations, as is advocated by Dr. Dynes. It would be impossible to apply the Triandis theory to predicting evacuation behavior at Indian Po in t , since there is no history of such previous behavior by the persons

involved on which to build.

Let us consider, by contrast, the procedure urged by Drs. Dynes and Lecker--one could hardly dignify it by calling it a theory--namely, that the future behavior of people during a radiological emergency at Indian Point can be predicted on the basis of the behavior of other people at ether places in different types of emergencies taking place some years ago. It relies upon three obvious fallacies.

First, it ignores the major role of the situation in determining behavior, which has been thoroughly established in a large body of recent psychological research stimulated by the radical situationalism of Mischel (1968).

Second, it assumes that people everywhere are the same, in all relevant respects, but especially that they have a uniform dominant response to stress, which is to become conforming and dependent upon constituted authorities. The literature to the contrary is so enormous that it would be tedious indeed to document more than a representative l

Surely the extraordinary diversity of human respoases fraction of it.

to stressful situations lika emergencics is well knovn (see, for example, toldberger & Breznitz,1982; Janis & Mann, 1981; Menninger, 1968; Grinker

& Spiegel, 1945; Hamilton & Warburton, 1979). A substantial subdiscipline in psychology for many years has been devoted to the study of individual i

, differences (see, for example, Anastasi, 1958; Tyler, 1956). A great deal of the work done at the Research Center for Mental Health has been focused on important dimensions of individual difference called cognitive styles (Gardner, Holzman, Klein, Linton & Spence,1959) . We have demon-strated over and over that people of contrasting cognitive styles react to precisely the same situation in diametrically opposite ways (see,

_9-1 e.-_ . . - - . . - . . , . . _ , , - . - - . - . . , , , . , - -

for example, Klein, 1954; 1970). Likewise, a large part of the liter-ature of abnormal and clinical psychology,1-ke that of psychiatry, is devoted to elucidating the extremely variegated ways in which people break down under various types of stress (see, for example, Holt, 1968; Janis, Mahl, Kagan & Holt, 1969). Dr. Lecker's uniformitarian stance is not supported by any seriocs scientific literature known to me.

The third fallacy is to assume that the American_ people have i

not changed in any important respuets during the past few decades. It happens that one of the most striking and consistently reported long-l term trends in American public opinion ever reported is the steady erosion of public faith in authority figures. Long reported in various journals of public opinion, it is now the subject of a full-length book,

by Lipsit (1983). In Appendix I, I present some representative data from a variety of reputable polling firms, which document this trend. All of the constituents of the establishment, from i

governmental institutions like the Congress and the Presidency to the mass media, big business, labor unions, and the universities, have lost their trust and faith of the public over the past 20 years. It is not difficult to understand why people would have been disillusioned about l the credibility of duly constituted authorities when the President of the United States was shown up to have deliberately lied and covered up the Watergate affair, and when so many figures in a previous administra-tion were shown in the Pentagon Papers to have behaved in a similar way about the war in southeast Asia.

l It is difficult to understand how anyone who lays so much stress on the role of faith in authorities and leaders in an emergency could shrug aside as of no importance such massive evidence of aidespread l

l i_,

attitudinal change over time. One manifestation of it in human response during emergency is the looting and other forms of public disorder during the New York City blackout of 1977. Dr. rynes himself has written about looting as a new phenomenon of public behavior. It can hardly be dis-regarded as a portent that the growing mood of alienation in America will malm it considerably less certain that the public will believe what authorities and experts tell them in case of an accident at Indian Point, and that they will comply with instructions. These data help us to understand the surprising new phenomenon of shadou evacuation at Three Mile Island. In this instance, people did not follow the course of behavior indicated by the authorities when at least 150,000 of them outside the 5-mile zone (where a limited evacuation was recommended) decided on their cwn to leave the area.

In relation to Dr. Lecker's repeated statement during his cross-examination that in an emergency at Indian Point, people would turn trustingly and obediently to the constituted authorities because of the existence of an emergency plan, certain data from the studies of Altschuler and of Yankelovich, Skelly and White (1981) are especially important. They agree in finding that most people in the EPZ do not trust Con Edison, and that very substantial minorities indicate that they would give little credence to statements by PASNY, the NRC, or l elected governmental figures. These are clear warning signals that many people will not behave in the traditional fashion of publics in nonradiological emergencies of bygone years, and that the smoothly coor-dinated, lockstep evacuation presumed by the licensees' consultants will be seriously disrupted by unpredictable and rebellious behavior of sub-stantial numbers of people.

l i

i i I

!, Given this state of affairs, it is even more urgent that a thorough  :

and adequately funded study of the entire affected area be conducted by a  !

firm of such impeccable reputation for objectivity as Yankelovich, Skelly i

& White, along the lines of the Suffolk County survey.

r i

j B. On ' Bystander Behavior' and Related Research  ;

j Since, under cross-examination, Dr. Lecker referred a couple of j l times to the literature on ' bystander behavior' as if it supported his f contention that everyone could be counted on to be helpful at a time of f

an accident at Indian Point, a few comments on this literature are in order.

The concept of ' bystander behavior' came into the social-scientific liter-

. ature following the highly publicized case of Kitty Genovese. In March 1968, she was stabbed to death in plain sight of 38 people who ignored her loud pleas for help and did not 2ven call the police until af ter she was i

dead. Darley and Latan? (1968; Latand & Darley,1970) and Darley and Batson (1973) initiated a large literature with a series of ingenious experiments focused on clucidating why onlookers and passers-by so rarely emulate the Good Samaritan. A review paper (Berkowitz, 1973) focused on j seeking explanations for the general finding of an " unwillingness to help I

others." The concept of ' bystander behavior' (or, often, ' bystander apathy')

has thus been used to mean just the opposite of the interpretation suggested  ;

by Dr. Lecker.

( The literature in this field has grown enormously; the recent review volume by Rushton and Sorrentino (1981) covers over 1,000 studies. There is k

little in it to support optimistic conclusions about emergency planning or the Lecker-Dynes advice to let it take care of itself. One noteworthy study [

(Mathews & Canon, 1975) showed both in the laboratory and in field studies,  !

that people he.p others more under quiet than noisy conditions. Their interpretation is that loud noises are stressful, and it is generally established that people's attention is restricted when they are highly aroused, as by stress. The work of Toi and Batson (1982) indicates that people help others when they can think about the feelings of those who need it. But being in danger oneself interferes with empathy for others.

Altogether then, an emergency evacuation is likely to be a situation in which spontaneous helping behavior toward strangers would be at a minimum.

What, however, about the behavior of emergency workers, health care workers, bus drivers, police officers and ot147s whose devotion to duty is presumed and required if the emergency plans are to work? It is

such an established fact that human beings put helping their own families above helping the general public, if a choice must be made, that socio-biologists have put forth theories of altruistic behavior postulating that helping behavior is under direct genetic control

the more closely one is i

related to another (the more shared genes), the greater the likelihood of altruistic behavior toward that person (Wilson, 1979; Dawkins, The Selfish Gene. N.Y.: Oxford , 1976) . Critiques of sociobiology (e.g., Gould, 1983) find other, cultural reasons preferabic, but do not challenge the fundamental starting point.

In this connection, I would like to add one personal observation.

In March 1981, I conducted some interviews with persons who had been through the Three Mile Island experience. One, a nurse, reported that at the hospital where she worked, the medical and other staffs were seriously depleted during the crisis, in striking contract to the situation just a few years earlier when there had 1.een a flood on the Susquehanna River.

Though the hospital was in some danger as a result of the flood, the staff had consistently showed up for duty. The difference was that they had been l Lable to secure the safety of their families during the flood, but could not be sure their loved ones were safe when faced with the pervasive, impalpable threat of radiation, except by getting them to a safe distance.

l 9

O

• APPENDIX 1 Measures of confidence in institutional representative-ness, trustworthiness and accountability.

1) "The government is run by a few big interests looking out for themselves."

1958 1980 AGREE 18% 76%

2) "The government in Washington cannot (only some of the time /

none of the time) be trusted to do what is right."

1964 1980 AGREE 25% 71%

3) Feel that "quite a few of the people running the government don't seem to know what they're doing."

1958 1980 AGREE 28% 63%

l (SOURCE: Center for Political Studies, Institute for Social Research University of Michigan Election Studies) l 4) "Most public officials (people in public office) are not really interested in the problems of the average man."

1980

"~ ~

AGNEE 73%

DISAGREE 27%

(SOURCE: National Opinion Research Center; General Social Surveys, 1980)

i

5) "As far as people in charge of running (READ EAal IIBO are concerned, would you say you have a great deal of confidence, only some confidence, or hardly any con-fidence at all in them?"

ChTIDENCE IN INSTI'lVTIOiS 1981 % 1980 1979 %

1978 1977  %

1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1966 i t t t t t t

, Medicine 37 34 30 - 42 43 42 43 49 57 48 61 73 Higher educational institutions 34 36 33 41 37 31 36 40 44 33 37 61 The U.S. Supreme Court 29 27 28 29 29 22 28 34 33 28 23 50 The militar) 28 28 29 29 27 23 24 29 40 35

- - 27 61 The N te House 28 18 15 14 31 11 X 18 18 X X X The executive brsnch of the federal government 24 17 17 14 23 .11 13 18 19 27 23 41 Television news 24 29 37 35 28 28 35 32 41 X X X

%jor companies 16 16 18 22 20 16 19 15 29 27 27 55 a"gress' 16 18 18 10 17 9 13 16 X 21 19 42 Ihe press 16 19 28 23 18 10 26 25 30 18 18 29 (X=not asked)

~ - - .

SOURC . Harris Survey: Trends in Confidence in Institutions; 1981/#85; as of Oct. 22,1981)

6) "Do you think public officials have been honest in telling the peo-ple all they know about the danger from the Three Mile Island acci-dent, or was the danger greater, or less than they said?"

1979 More danger than they 55%

said Told all they knew 20%

Danger was less than they said 8%

No opinion 17%

(SOURCE: CBS/New York Times Poll; April, 1979)

L 7 "How much trust do you have in what the government tells you about the risks of nuclear power?"

1978 l

A great deal 16%

l Some 42%

l Very little 42%

"How much trust do you have in what the opponents of nuclear power t911 you about the risks of nuclear power?"

1978 A great deal 8%

Some 51%

~ n -. .,

Very little 41%

(SOURCE: Bureau of Social Science Research, for Resources for the Future; July /Aug, 1978)

I i . . ~

APPENDIX 2 Measures of attitudes toward nuclear power, on issues of safety, proximity, and general desirability.

1) "Would you be afraid to have a plant located in this community which was run by atomic energy?"

1956 Yes 20%

No 69%

f Don't Know 11%

(SOURCE: Gallup; January, 1956)

2) ....How do you feel -- that it would be safe to have an atomic energy plant somewhere near here, or that it would present dangers?"

, 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 "Are safe " 36% 37% 42% 33% 39% .

"Present dangers" 44% 41% 43% 46% 47%

" Don't know" 23% 22% 15% 21% 14%

(SOURCE: Roper Organization, as of October 1, 1977)

3) "All in all, from what you have heard or read, how safe are nuclear power plants that produce electric power?"

1975 1977 1978 1979 Safe

• 54% 65% 64% 67%

l -

Not safe

• 18% 23% 28% 30%

e_ ..,

i Not sure 18% 12% 8% 3%

i O(Safe =very 6 somewhat safe) l (Unsafe =not so safe 5 dangerous) i I

(SOURCE: ABC/ Harris Poll; Lou Harris 6 Associates, as of April 4, 1979)

, 4) "Would you approve or disapprove if the nuclear plants for generating electricy are built in your community?"

1977 1979

Approve 55% 38%

Disapprove 33% 56% l l

, (SOURCE:

i CBS/New York Times Poll; as of April 7,1979) l

' 5) "Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: no more nuc-lear power plants should be built in this country until questions about safetfy are resolved, even though this will mean energy short- .L 1

ages within ten years?"

1978 Agree (no more plants until safety

questions resolved) 57%

I ' - ~ ~

Disagree 43%

,(SOURCE: NBC/ Associated Press Poll; as of September 20, 1978)

5) "Considering the accident (at Three Mile Island) do you approve or disapprove of the following policies...? The federal government should allow the 44 more nuclear power plants now planned, but should supervise their construction more strictly than has been the case up to now."

1979 <

l Continue with stricter supervision 73%  ;

Should not continue 27%

i "Do you feel that what happened (at Three Mile Island) could happen  !

at any of the other nuclear power plants in the United States, or do '

you think an unusual series of things went wrong there that are ex- j tremely unlikely to happen in other nuclear plants?" 1 1979 Could happen'at- ~o~ther plants 70%

Unusual occurence 30 ',

-(SOURCE: ABC/ Harris Poll; April 9, 1979) l

7) "I'm going to read you several statements relating to ways that have been suggested to improve our energy situation. As I read each state-ment, please tell me whether you strongly favor it, mildly favor it, mildly oppose it, or strongly oppose it....--More nuclear power plants to generate electricity..."

March, 1979 March, 1981

~

Strongly favor 51% 31%

Mildly favor 26% 25%

Mildly oppose 12% 15%

Strongly oppose 12% 29%

(SOURCE: Opinion Research Corporation, for LTV Industries Co.; as of March, 1981)

8) "We now import from fcreign countries about 45% of the oil we use, and estimates are that at present usage rates we will need to import more over time. Furthermore, while other oil producing countries now have excess oil supplies, these excess supplies cannot last forever. Ex-perts say this all means that we must find ways both to conserve oil and to develop new energy sources. Here are some suggestions that have been made...For each, tell me whether it is something you think should or should not be done....'go into greatly increased program to develop nuclear energy.'"

2/1977 3/1979 3/1980 3/1981 Should go into nuclear I. development program 61% 57% 45% 49%

Should not 23% 30% 43% 35%

Don't know 16% 13% 12% 16%

i (SOURCE: Roper Organization, # 81-4 ; as of March 28, 1981)

~.

l - -. .,

l l

e l

1

-A) "In general, do power plants or'you feel that we should continue to build nucleardo you feel it's too dangerous:

these plants?" [

1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977  !

l s t t t t j 3hould continue to build 41 50 47 50 49 50 l t

Too dangerous to continue building 50 41 40 39 37 32 Don't know/no answer 9 9 13 11 14 18 ,

i,  !

i 3B) "Some people say that we will be using more and more nuclear power i plants to generate electricity, but this seems to worry some people.

Which of the following, if any, worry you about nuclear power plants?"  ;

1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976  !

t t t t t t t

?reblem of radioactive waste disposal 76 69 70 67 62 Possibility of small seepage causing

.ealth ha:ards 60 62 54 48 46 44 45 f analnation of water 61 61 53 49 46 47 47 Possibility of massive seepage caus- ,

ing death 58 58 52 42 33 32 31 Danger to workers 53 50 49 47 44 36 40 ,

i Atomic explosion 45 47 42 37 35 25 28 ossibility of sabotage 42 44 45 34 32 32 28 Danger of seepage from earthquakes 45 41 42 36 33 33 30 Theft of nuclear materials 36 37 38 29 29 32 27 Droblem of what to do with plants j that are'no longer in use 34 34 35 None of these 4 8 ,

(SOURE: Yani21ovich, Skelly and hhite surveys; as of March,1982) l l

l h k

Curriculum Vitae ROBERT R. HOLT Personal Infornation i Born in Jacksonville, Florida, December 27, 1917

Address

20 East 8th Street, New York, NY 10003 Married; 4 children i

Education Princeton University, B. A., 1939 (Highest honors)

Harvard University, M.A., 1941 Harvard University, Ph.D.,1944 Attended courses and seminars for several years in the Washington School of Psychiatry and the Topeka Institute for Psychoanalysis (1944-53)

Certification Diplomate in Clinical Psychology of the American Board of Examiners in Professional Psychology, 1952 l

Certified Psychologist, New York State, 1958-present Honors / Fellowships / Awards f

Phi Beta Kappa, 1938 Sigma Xi, 1943 Fellow, Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, Stanford, Calif., and Special Research Fellow, National Institute of Mental Health, 1960-61.

Research Career Award, National Institute of Mental Health, 1962-present.

Great Man Award, Society for Projective Techniques and Personality Assessment, 1969.

6 Psychologist of the Year Award, New York Society of Clinical Psycholo-gists, 1973.

William V. Silverberg Memorial Lecturer, American Acadenly of Psycho-Analysis, December 1973.

Award, Distinguished Contributions to Clinical Psychology for 1974.

Division of Clinical Psychology, Division 12 of the American Psy-chological Association, August, 1974.

Sandor Rado Memorial Lecturer, Columbia University Institute for Psycho-analysis, 1978.

Philips Distinguished Visitor Haverford College, Nov. 20-21, 1980.

u _ __

Holt--2 Positions Held 1941-44 Research Assistant, Harvard Psychological Clinic, Cambrfdge, MA 1941-44 Tutor and Tea:hing Fellow, Harvard and Radcliffe, Cambridge, MA 1944-46 Study Director, Division of Program Surveys, B.A.E., Wash., DC 1944 Instructor, American University, Wash., DC

< 1946-49 Clinical Psychologist Winter V.A. Hospital, Topeka, Kansas 1946-50 Clinical Assistant Professor, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 1947-49 Associate Psychologist, The Menninger Foundation, Topeka, Kansas 1949-53 Senior Psychologist, Research Department, The Menninger Foundation Topeka, Kansas 1949-53 Lecturer, fopeka Institute for Psychoanalysis, Topeka, Kansas 4

1951-53 Director of Psychological Staff. The Menninger Foundation (Also served as Acting Director, Department of Research, June-  :

September, 1952; June-September, 1953) 1953-58 Associate Professor of Psychology, Graduate School of Arts and Science, New York University 1953-63 Director, Research Center for Mental Health, New York University 1953-60 Part-time private practice of diagnostic testing, New York, NY 1956-61 Member, Fellowship Committee, Foundations Fund for Research in Psychiatry 1958- Professor of Psychology, New York University 1963-69 Co-Director, Research Center for Mental Health, NYU i 1963-65 Member, National Institutes of Health, Mental Health Fellowship j Review Panel i 1964-68 Member, NYU Arts and Science Research Fund Comittee i

1967-68 Visiting Professor of Clinical Psychology, Harvard University 1968-69 Member, NIMH Mental Health Extramural Research Advisory

! Comittee

} 1969- Senior Staff Member, Research Center for Mental Health, NYU 1969-72 Member, Board of Trustees, Psychological Service Center, New York Society of Clinical Psychologists 1970-74 Member, NYU Institutional Grants Comittee 1975-76 Member, NYU Arts and Science Research Fund Comittee 1976-77 Member, NYU Center for Humanistic Studies 1981- Member, NYU Human Subjects Committee 1982- Member, NYU Graduate Curriculum Comittee l

Professional Society Participation i

American Psychological Association: Associate, 1941-51; Fellow, 1951-present (Divisions 8 and 12).

Member, Advisory Comittee on Psychological Bulletin and Psychological Monographs, 1954-55.

Member, Council of Representatives, 1954-56, 1961-63.

Representative, World Federation for Mental Health, 1954-56.

l

Holt--3 APA Division of Clinical Psychology (Division 12): President-elect, 1961-62; Past-President, 1962-63 Comittee on Examinations in Clinical Psychology: Member, 1947-48; Chairman, 1948-49 Comittee on Nominations and Elections: Member, 1948-50, 1954-58; Chairman, 1956-57, 1962-63 Comittee on Publicction Outlets in Clinical Psychology: Chairman, 1949-52 Executive Committee: Member-at-large, 1951-53; Member and Council Delegate, 1954-57, 1960-63 Comittee on Divisional Reorganization: Member, 1961-62 Organizing Comittee, Conference on an Idealized Training Program for Psychotherapists: Chairman, 1961-63 Awards Comittee: Member, 1964-65 Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues: Member, 1941-60; 1961-present Comittee on Atomic Education: Member, 1948-50 Comittee on Arms Control and Disarmament: Member, 1961-64 Topeka Psychoanalytic Society: Associate Member, 1947-54 Society for Projective Techniques and Rorschach Institute, Inc.:

Fellow, T948-58 Comittee on Membership: Member, 1949-51 Executive Comittee: Member, 1949-53 Comittee on Ethics: Member, 1954-58 New York Chapter: Executive Board Member, 1954-55 American Association for the Advancement of Science: Member, 1949-62; Fellow, 1962-present Council for the Advancement of the Psychological Professions and Sciences:

Member, Board of Governors, 1971-74 New York State Psychological Association: Member, 1955-1972 Comittee on Peace: Member, 1961-62 Committee on Mental Health Clinic Licensure: Member, 1962-63 Comittee on Response to Social Issues: Member, 1969-71 World Federation for Mental Health: Asscciate, 1956-63 American Association of University Professors: Member, 1958-present Psychonomic Society: Member, 1960-70 Associaticn for the Psychological Study of Sleep: Member, 1961-71 Congress of Scientists on Survival: Interim Council Member, 1962-63 Federation of American Scientists: Member, 1962-present Council on Resn rch in Bibliography: President, 1965-73 Peace Science Society (International): Member, 1965-present Environmental Research Fund: Member, Board of Scientific Advisors, 1971-present Society for General Systems Research: Member, 1976-present I

l Holt--4 Editorial Experience The TAT Newsletter, Editor, 1946-52 Journal of Social Issues, Member, Editorial Mvisory Board, 1949-51 Journal of Projective Techniques, Member, Editorial Advisory Board, 1949-60 Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Consulting Editor, 1955-60 Journal of Psychological Researches (Macras, India), Editorial Board, 1956-66 Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, Member, Editorial Board, 1957-present Psychological Issues, Member, Editorial Board, 1958-present American Imago, Member, Board of Consultants, 1963-present Handbook of Clinical Psychology, Member, Editorial Board, 1963-65 Psychoanalysis and Contemporary Science, Member, Editorial Board, 1969-77 Core Infornation Series: Psychology, Member, Editorial Advisory Board, 1974-75 Psychoanalysis and Contemporary Thought, Member, Editorial Advisory Board, 1978-present '

Journal of Mental Imagery, Member, Editorial Advisory Board, 1981-present Imagination, Cognition and Personality: The Scientific Study of Consciousness, Member, Editorial Advisory Board, 1980-present Review of Psychoanalytic Books, Member, Editorial Board, 1980-present International Forum of Psychoanalysis, Member, Advisory Board, 1982-present Consultantships Consultant to Research Department, Menninger Foundation, 1953-60 Training Consultant, New York Area Veterans Administration, 1953-64 Consultant to Bank Street College of Education, Advisory Committee for Teacher Selection Project, New York, NY, 1953-58 Consultant to Society for the Investigation of Human Ecology, New York, NY, 1957-58 Chairman, Committee of Consultants, Mental Health Book Review Index, 1958-73 Consultant to New York State Psychiatric Institute, 1958-59 Consultant to Psychology Panel of the Armed Forces--NRC Committee on Bio-Astronautics, 1959-60 Consultant to Pregnancy Research Project, Beth Israel Hospital, Boston, MA, 1959-60 Consultant to Department of Psychiatry, City Hospital at Elmhurst, Queens, NY, 1960-61 Consultant to Milledgeville State Hospital, Milledgeville, Georgia, 1962-63 Consultant to PANE (People Against Nuclear Energy), Middletown, PA, 1981-present l

l

Bibliography ROBERT R. HOLT

1. Holt, R. R. Level of aspiration as ego defense. Psychological Bulletin, 1942, 39, 457 (Abstract).

2. Sanford, F. H., 6 Holt, R. R. Psychological determinants of morale.

Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1943, 38,, 93-95.

3. [ Holt, R. R.] Contribution to Chapter XIII. In E. G. Boring and Marjorie Van de Water (Eds.), Psychology for the fighting man.

Washington, DC: 'Ihe Infantry Journal,1943.

4. Holt, R. R. Effects of ego-involvement upon levels of aspiration.

Psychiatry, 1945, 8_, 299-317.

5. Holt, R. R. Level of aspiration: Ambition or defense? Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1946, 36, 398-416.

6. Maccoby, E. E., 6 Holt, R. R. How surveys are made. Journal of Social Issues, 1946, ~2, 45-57. Reprinted with minor modifica-ticns in T. Newcomb 6 E. Hartley (Eds.), Readings in social psychology. New York: Holt, 1947.

7. Holt, R. R. The TAT Newsletter, from Vol. I, No. 1 (September, 1946) to Vol. V, No. 4 (Spring 1952. Vol. III, No. 1, through Vol. V, No. 4, reprinted in Journal of Projective Techniques (Rorschach Research Exchange), from 1949, H, to 1952,1,5,. 5

8. Holt, R. R. Motivational factors in levels of aspiration. Summaries of theses 1943-45. Cambridge: Harvard University, 1947.

Pp. 603-607 (Abstract).

9. [ Holt, R. R.] The didactic curriculum. Bulletin of The Menninger Clinic,1947, H,123-134 (Special issue on training in clinical psychology).

10. Bellak, L., 4 Holt, R. R. Somatotypes in relation to dementia praecox. American Journal of Psychiatry, 1948, 104, 713-724.

Reprinted in G. W. Lasker 6 F. P. Thieme (Eds.), Yearbook of

?hysical anthropology, Vol. 4, 1948. New York: The Viking

?und, 1949.

11. Holt, R. R. 'Ihe assessment of psychiatric aptitude from the TAT.

American Psychologist, 1948, 3_, 271 (Abstract).

12. Holt, R. R. Some statistical problems in clinical research. Educa-tional and Psychological Measurement, 1950, 10 609-627.

Reprintea in S. J. Beck 6 H. B. Molish (Eds.T, Reflexes to intelligence, entitled "What price quantification." New York:

Basic Books, 1959.

Holt--2

13. Holt, R. R. An approach to the validation of the Szondi test through a systematic study of unreliability. Journal of Projective Techniques, 1950, 14 435-444. (Abstract in American Psychologist, 1949,,{,269.)

14. Luborsky, L. B., Holt, R. R., 4 Morrow, W. R. Interim report of the research project on the selection of medical men for psychiatric training. Bulletin of The Menninger Clinic, 1950, 14,92-101.

15. Holt, R. R. The accuracy of self-evaluations: Its measurement and some of its personological correlates. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1951, 15,95-101. (Abstract in American Psychologist, 1947, 2_, 276-277.)---

16. Holt, R. R. The Thematic Apperception Test. In H. H. 6 G. L.

Anderson (Eds.), An introduction to projective techniques.

New York: Prentice-Hall, 1951. Pp. 181-229.

17. Holt, R. R. Part III--Psychological tests. In G. Devereux, Reality and dream. New York: International Universities Press, 1951. Pp. 377-413.

18. Holt, R. R. An inductive method of analyzing defense of self-esteem. Bulletin of The Menninger Clinic, 1951, y , 6-15. '

19. Holt, R. R. Chapter 10 [ untitled; an analysis of TAT and MAPS test]. In E. Shneidman et al., Thematic test analysis. New York: Grune 6 Stratton, 1951. Pp. 101-118.

20. Holt, R. R. Our fears and what they do to us. Menninger Quarterly, 1951, 6, 9-16.

21. Holt, R. R., 6 Luborsky, L. Research in the selection of psychia-trists: A second interim report. Bulletin of The Menninger Clinic, 1952, H , 125-135.

22. Holt, R. R. 'Ihe case of Jay: Interpretation of Jay's Thematic Apperception Test. Journal of Projective Technigaes,1952, M,457-461.

23. Holt, R. R., Chotlos, J. W., 6 Scheerer, M. Publicaticn problems in psychology. American Psychologist, 1953, 8, 235-242.

24. Holt, R. R. Implications of some contemporary personality theories for Rorschach rationale. In B. Klopfer, M. D. Ainsworth, W. G.

Klopfer 6 R. R. Holt, Developments in the Rorschach technique2 Vol. I. Technique and theory. New York: World Book Co., 1954.

Pp. 501-560.

i Holt--3

25. Holt, R- R. Problems in the use of sample :iurveys. In R. Kotinsky 6 H. L Witmer (Eds.), Community programs for mental __ health Cambridge: Harvard University Press,1955. Pp. 325-358.

26. Holt, R. R., 4 Luborsky, L. h selection of candiates for psycho-analytic training: On the use of interviews and psychological tests. Journal of the American Psychoanaly tic Association,1955, 3, 666-681.

27. Holt, R. R. Rejoinder to Mayzner's review of Schafer's " Psycho-analytic interpretation in Rorschach testing." Psychology Newsletter, 1956, ,7_, 47-50.

28. Holt, R. R. Gauging primary and secondary processes in Rorschach responses. Journal of Projective Techniques, 1956, 20, 14-25.

29. Luborsky, L., 6 Holt, R. R. h selection of candidates for psycho-analytic training: Implicatiens from research on the selection of psychiatric residents. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Psychopatholog, 1957, 18, 166-176.

30. Holt, R. R. Clinical and statistical prediction: A reformulation '

and some new data. 7 ournal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 36 1-12.

1958, study 2 , abnormal behavior: Reprinted Selected in M. Zax 6New readings. G. Stricker York: (Eds.), The Macmillan, 1964; 2nd ed., 1969. Also in I. N. Mensh (Ed.),

Clinical psychology: Science and profession. New York: Mac-millan, 1966. Also In E. 1. Megargee (EC.), Research in clinical assessment. New York: Harper 4 Row, 1966. Pp. 657-672.

31. Klein, G. S., Spence, D. F., Holt, R. R., 6 Gourevitch, S. Cognition without awareness: Subliminal influences upon conscious thought.

Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1958, 57 Abstract in American Psychologist, 1955,10,380.T,255-266.

32. Holt, R. R. Formal aspects of the TAT--A neglected resource. Journal of Projective Techniques, 1958, 22 163-172. Also in Bobbs- ,

Merrill Reprint Series in the SocTa,l Sciences, P-481,1966.

33. Goldberger, L., 6 Holt, R. R. Experimental interference with reality contact (perceptual isolation): Method and group results.

Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 1958, 127,99-112.

34. Holt, R. R., 4 Luborsky, L. Personality patterns of psychiatrists (2 vols.). New York: Basic Books, 1958.

35. Holt, R. R. Researchmanship, or how to write a dissertation in clinical14psychology 151. Reprinted without really in R. trying(.Ed.),

A. Baker American Psychlogy Psychologist, in the 1959, wry. New, York: Van Nostrand, 1963. Also reprinted in Psygram, 1978, 18,(1), 34-35 (South African Psychol. Assn., Johannesburg).

Holt--4

37. Holt, R. R. A comment on the Wiener-Nichols controversy. Journal of Projective Techniques, 1959, 23, 3 7.77-378.

38. Holt, R. R. Discussion remarks on "Further observations on the Poetz1 phenomenon--A study of day residucs" by Charles Fisher.

Psycho 3palytic Quarterly, 1959, 2_8, 8 442.

39. Holt, R. R. , 6 Goldberger, L. Personological correlates of reac-tions to perceptual isolation. USAF WADC Technical Reports, 1959, No.59-735, 46 pp.

40. Holt, R. R. (with the collaboration and assistance of Joan Havel, Leo Goldberger, Anthony Philip and Reeva Safrin). Manual for the scoring of primary process manifestations in Rorschach responses (7th ed.). New York: Research Center for Mental Health, New York University,1959(mimeographed). (Later drafts in 1962, 1963 and 1969.)

41. Holt, R. R., 6 Goldberger, L. Research on the effects of isolation on cognition functioning. USAF WADC Technical Reports,1960, No.60-260, 22 pp.

42. Holt, R. R., 6 Havel, J. A method for assessing primary and secondary process in the Rorschach. In M. A. Rickers-Ovslankina (Ed.),

Rorschach psychology. New York: Wiley, 1960, pp. 263-315.

43. Klein, G. S., 4 Holt, R. R. Problems and issues in current studies of subliminal activation. In J. G. Peatr.;m and E. L. Hartley (Eds.),

Festschrift for Gardner Murphy. New York: Harper, 1960. Pp.

75-95.

44. Holt, R. R. Discussion remarks on "The effect of dream deprivation and excess: An experimental demonstration of the necessity for a , 9 6b8 l

45. Holt, R. R. Recent developments in psychoanalytic ego psychology and their implications for diagnostic testing. Journal of Projective l

Techniques, 1960, 24, 254-266.

46. Holt, R. R. Cognitive controls and primary processes. Journal of Psychological Research;s, 1960, 4_, 105-112.

47. Pine, F., 6 Holt, R. R. Creativity and primary process: A study of adaptive regression. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1960, 61_, 370-379.

48. Goldberger, L., 6 Holt, R. R. Experimental interference with reality l

contact: Individual differences. In P. Solomon et al. (Eds.),

l

. , . . -- . - ~ - .. -..--,,n . . - . - - . - . , , - .

. . _-= _ . - _ _ . . .- , _ ~ - . _ _ . _ -. _ . . .

Holt--5 Sensory deprivation. Cambridge: Harvard University Press,1961.

Pp. 150-142.

49. Holt, R. R. The nature of TAT stories as cognitive products: A psy-choanalytic approach. In J. Kagan 6 G. Lesser (Eds.),

Contemporary issues in thematic apperceptive methods. Spring-field, IL: C. C. Thomas,1961. Pp. 3-43.

50. Holt, R. R., 6 Goldberger, L. Assessment of individual resistance to sensory alteration. In B. E. Flaherty (Ed.), Psychophysiological aspects of space flight. New York: Columbia University Press, 1961. Pp. 248-262.

51. Holt, R. R. Clinical judgment as a disciplined inquiry. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 1961, 133, 369-382. Bobbs-Merrill Reprint Series in the Social Sciences, P-480, 1966.

52. Goldberger, L., 6 Holt, R. R. Studies on the effects of perceptual alteration. pSAF ASD Technical Reports,1961, No.61-416, 20 pp.

53. Goldberger, L., 6 Holt, R. R. A comparison of isolation effects and their personality correlates in two divergent samples. USAF WADC Technical Rep, orts, 1961, No.61-417, 46 pp.

54. Holt, R. R. The president's coltaan. Newsletter, Division of Clinical Psychology, APA,1961,14(4), 5; 1962,15(1),1-2; 15(2), 4-5; M(3),6-7.

f

55. HM t, R. R. , 6 Proshar. sky, H. Roles for psychologists in promoting peace. SPSSI Newsletter, June 1962, 1-4.

56. Holt, R. R. A critical examination of Freud's concept of bound vs.

free cathexis. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Associa-tion, 1962, H , 475-525.

57. Holt, R. R. Indiviudality and generalization in the psychology of personality. Journal of Personality, 1962, 30, 377-404. Trans-lated into Italian: Individualita e genera 1Izzazione nella psi-cologia della personalita. Bollettino di Psicologia Applicata, N. 57-58, Giugno-Agosto 1963. Reprinted in F. H. Sanford 6 E. J.

Capaldi (Eds.), Advancing psychological science, Vol. I: Philo-sophies, methods, and approaches. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1964.

Also reprinted in E. Southwell 6 M. Merbaum (Eds.), Personality:

Readings in theory and research: A book of readings. New York:

Prentice-Hall, 1966. Also, Bobbs-Merill Reprint Series in the Social Sciences, P-482, 1966. Also abridged under the title, "The logic of the romantic point of view in personology," in T. Millon (Ed.), Theories of psychopathology. Philadelphia: W. B.

Saunders, 1967. Pp. 315-322. Also reprinted in J. O. Whittaker (Ed.), Recent discoveries in psychology. Philadelphia: W. B.

Saunders, 1972.

--,,n-,, --

- , - - , - e -- -n , , - - - - --. --

,, .---w--- . - , - - - - , - - - - - , , - - -, ,e -e ----- - - , - w -- - e- ~

..- _ - _ _ - - . _ - - . _- _ = . . - - - - . - _ _ _ - _ _ . _ - -- . .

Holt--6 Rerised version: In R. S. Lazarus 6 E. M. Opton (Eds.), Per-sonality: Selected readings. Perquin Modern Psychology ,

! UPS 9. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books,1967. Pp. '

38-65.

58. liolt, R. R. A clinical-experimental strategy for research in per-sonality. In S. Messick 6 J. Ross (Eds.), Measurement in per-sonality and cognition. New York: Wiley, 1962. ,

59. Holt, R. R. Two influences on Freud's scientific thought: A frag-ment of intellectual biography. In R. W. White (Ed.), The study of lives. New York: Atherton Press,1963. Pp. 364-387.

60. Holt, R. R. New directions in the training of psychotherapists (Edi-torial). Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 1963, 18, 677-79.

61. Hol t , R. R. Forcible indoctrination and personality change. In P.

Worchel 6 D. Byrne (Eds.), Personality change. New York: Wiley, 1964. Pp. 289-318.

62. Holt, R. R. Imagery: The return of the ostracized. American Psy-chologist, 1964, 19 254-264. Reprinted in E. P. Torrance 6 W. F. White (Eds.T, Issues and advances in educational asy-chology: A book of readings. Itasca, IL: F. E. Peacoci, 1969.

Also abridged in B. L. Kintz 6 J. L. Bruning (Eds.), Research in psychology: Readings for the introductory course. Glenview, IL:

Scott, Foresman, 1970. Pp. 314-320.

63. Holt, R. R. The emergence of cognitive psychology (book essay).

Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 1964, 1_2_,

650-665.

64. Holt, R. R. A review of some of Freud's biological assumptions and their influence on his theories. In N. S, Greenfield 6 W. C.

Iewis (Eds.), Psychoanalysis and current biological thought.

Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1965. Pp.93-124.

65. Holt, R. R. Ex In B.

Wolman (Ed.perimental

), Handbook methods of clinicalinpsychology.

clinical psychology.

New York:

McGraw-Hill, 1965. Pp. 40-77.

66. Holt, R. R. Ego autonomy re-evaluated. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 1965, 45, 151-167. Reprinted with critical evaluations by S. C. MiTfer, A. Namnum, B. B. Rubinstein, J.

Sahdler 6 W. G. Joffe, R. Schafer, H. Wei;m , and the author's rejoinder (see No. 71 below), International Journal of Psy-chiatry, 1967, 3_, 481-536.

67. Holt, R. R. Freud's cognitive style. American Imago, 1965, 2_2, 163-179.

l Holt--7

68. Holt, R. R. Psychotherapy as an autonomous profession: An alter-native to the Clark Committee's proposal. In Preconference materials pre?ared for the Conference on the Professional Pre tration of Clinical Psychologists. Washingt6n, DC: American sy ological Association, 1965. Also in E. L. Hoch, A. O. Ross, 4 C. L. Winder (Eds.), Professional preparation of clinical psy-chologists. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 1966.

69. Holt, R. R. A brave beginning to an enormous task. Critical evalua-tion of "A methodological study of Freudian theory" by A.

Kardiner, A. Karush, 6 L. Ovesey, International Journal of Psy-chiatry, 1966, 2_, 545-548.

70. Holt, R. R. Measuring libidinal and aggressive motives and their controls by means of the Rorschach test. In D. Levine (Ed.),

Nebraska tgposium on motivation, 1966. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Prens, 1966. Pp. 1-47. Reprinted in P. M. Lerner (Ed.),

'undbook of Rorschach scales. New York: International Universi-ties Press, 1975.

71. Holt, R. R. On freedom, autonomy, and the redirection of psycho-analytic theory: A rejoinder. International Journal of Psp chiatry, 1967, 3_, 524-536 (see also No. 66 above).

72. Holt, R. R. (Ed.). Motives and thought: Psychoanalytic essays in memory of David Rapaport. Psychological Issues, Monograph 18/19.

l New York: International Universities Press, 1967.

73. Holt, R. R. David Rapaport: A memoir (September 30, 1911-December l 14, 1960. In R. R. Holt (Ed.), Motives and thought (No. 72 1

above). Pp. 7-17.

74. Holt, R. R. The development of the primary process: A structural view. In R. R. Holt (Ed.), Motives and thought (No. 72 above).

Pp. 345-383.

75. Holt, R. R. Beyond vitalism and mechanism: Freud's concept of psychic energy. In J. H. Masserman (Ed.), Science and psycho-analysis, Vol. XI: Concepts of ego. New York: Grune 6 Stratton, 1967. Pp. 1-41. And in B. Wolman (Ed.), Historical roots of contemporary psychology. New York: Harper 6 Row, 1968. Pp.

196-226. Abstract in Psychiatric Spectator, 1967, 4_, 16-17 (Sando: publication).

76. Holt, R. R. Discussion: On using experiential data in personality assessment; Sympositan: The role of experiential data in person-ality assessment. Journal of Projective Techniques and Person-ality Assessment, 1967, 31(4), 25-30.

I

77. Holt, R. R. Diagnostic testing: Present status and future prospects.

Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 1967, 144, 444-465.

l l

s Holt--8

78. Holt, R. R. (Ed.). Revised edition of Diagnostic psychological testing by D. Rapaport, M. M. Gill 5 R. Schafer. New York:

International Universities Press,1968.

79. Holt, R. R. ireud, Sigmund. International encyclopedia of the social sciences (Vol. 6). New York: Macmillan and he Free Press, 1968. Pp. 1-12.

80. Holt, R. R. Assessing personality. Part IV of I. L. Janis, G. F.

Mahl, J. Kagan 6 R. R. Holt, Personality: Dynamics, development, and assessment. New York: Harcourt, Brace 6 World,1969. Pp.

575 801.

81. Holt, R. R. Kubie's dream and its impact upon reality: Psychotherapy as an autonomous profession. Journal of Nervous and Mental Dis-ease, 1969, 149, 186-207.

82. Holt, R. R. He lasting value of the inconscious, or Rabkin fails to Peirce Freud. Critical evaluation of "Is the unconscious neces-sary?" by Richard Rabkin. International Journal of Psychiatry, 1969, 8, 585-589.

83. Holt, R. R. Yet another look at clinical and statistical prediction:

Or, is clinical psychology worthwhile? American Psychologist, 1970, y , 337-349.

84. Holt, R. R. On the interpersonal and intrapersonal consequences of expressing or not expressing anger. Discussion of paper, "Experi-mental investigations of hostility catharsis," by L. Berkowitz.

Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1970, 35, 8-12.

85. Holt, R. R. Artistic creativity and Rorschach measures of adaptive regression. In B. Klopfer, M. M. Meyer 6 F. B. Brawer (Eds.),

Developments in the Rorschach techni.,ue, Vol. III: Aspects of personality structure. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1970. Pp. 263-320.

86. Holt, R. R. Freud's two images of man. Western Psychologist Mono-graph Series, No. 2, 1971, 5-25.

87. Holt, R. R. Some neglected assumptions and problems in psychology's information crisis. American Psychologist, 1971, 26, 331-334.

l 88. Holt, R. R. Assessing personality. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovano-vich, 1971 (paper >ack reprint of Part IV, No. 80 abovv).

89. Holt, R. R. (Ed.). New horizon for psychotherapy: _ Autonomy as a pro-fession. New York: International Universities Pfess,1971.

Holt--9

90. Holt, R. R. Summary and pros >ect: The dawn of a new profession.

In R. R. Holt (Ed.), New torizon for psychotherapy (see No. 89 above),pp. 312-411.

91. Holt, R. R. In memoriam: George S. Klein. Psychological Issues, l 1971,,7,(3),v-vii.

92. Barr, H. B. , Langs, R. J. , Holt , R. R. , Goldberger, L. , 6 Klein, G. S.

LSD: Personality and experience. New York: Wiley, 1972.

93. Holt, R, R. Freud's mechanistic and htmanistic image of man. In R. R. Holt 4 E. Peterfreund (Eds.), Psychoanalysis and Contempo-rary Science, 1972, 1, 3-24.

94. Holt, R. R. On the nature and generality of mental imagery. In P. W.

i Sheehan (Ed.), The function and nature of imagery. New York:

Academic Press, 1972.

95. Holt, R. R. Should the psychotherapist prescribe the pills?

Preferably not! International Journal of Psychiatry, 1972, 10,(4),82-86.

96. Holt, R. R. Methods of research in clinical psychology. Morris-town, NJ: General Learning Press, 1973.

97. [ Holt, R. R.] Personality. In B. B. Wolman (Ed.), Dictionary of behavioral science. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co.,

1973. P. 275

98. Holt, R. R. On reading Freud. Introduction to Abstracts of the Standard Edition of Freud. New York: Jason Aronson, 1974.

99. Holt, R. R. Book review: Loevinger, Jane, 6 Wessler, Ruth.

Measuring e o development, Vol.1: Construction and use of a sentence completion test. Loevinger, Jane, Wessler, Ruth, 6 Redmore, Carolyn. Vol. 2: Scoring manual for women and girls.

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1970. In Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 1974, 158, 310-318.

l 100. Holt, R. R. In retrospect: Response to the Distinguished Contri-butions Award, Division 12, APA. Clinical Psychologist, 1974, g(1),5-6.

101. Holt, R. R. The current status of ?sychoanalytic theory. Behavioral Sciences Tape Library. leonia, .iJ: Sigma Information, 1974. ,

102. Holt, R. R. Clinical and statistical measurement and prediction:

How not to survey the literature. JSAS Catalog of Selected Docu-ments in Psychology, 1975,_5_, 178. MS No. 837.

103. Holt, R. R. The past and future of ego psychology. Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 1975,44(4),550-576.

o

• i Holt--10 104. Holt, R. R. Drive or wish? A reconsideration of the psychoanalytic theory of motivation. Psychological Issues, 1976,,9_(4 Whole No.

36), 158-197.

105. Holt, R. R. Freud's theory of the primary process--present status, i

Psychoanalysis and Contemporary Science, 1976,_5_, 61-99.

106. Holt, R. R. A method for assessing primary and secondary process in the Rorschach. In M. A. Rickers-Ovsiankina (Ed.), Rorschach Psy-chology,(rev. ed.). New York: Krieger, 1977.

107. Holt, R. R. The emerging Introduction to L. Afflerbach field of sociobibliography: The6collected M. Franck (Eds.),

essays o F Ilse Bry. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press,1977.

108. Holt, R. R. Methods in clinical psychology: Assessment, predictic_n and reschrch (2 vols.). New York: Plenum, 1978.

4 109. Holt, R. R. Ideological and thematic conflicts in Freud's thought.

In S. Smith (Ed.), The hissan mind revisited: Essays _in honor of Karl A. Menninger. New York: International Universities Press, F978.

110. Holt, R. R. The death and transfiguration of metapsychology. (The Sandor Rado lecture, April 20, 1978) Reported by D. D. Olds in the Bulletin of the Association for Psychoanalytic Medicine, 1978, 18(1), 21-25.

111. Holt, R. R. Theory, no; method, yes. (Review of Coling and defend-ing: Processes of self-environment organization >y Norma Haan)

I Contemporary Psychology, 1978, 23_(3), 139-141.

112. Holt, P.. R. Review of Language and insight by Roy Schafer. Psycho-analytic Quarterly, 1979, 48(3), 496-500.

l 113. Holt, R. R. Freud's impact on modern morality. The Hastings Center Report, 1980, 1_9(2), 38-46.

l 114. Holt, R. R. Was Freud really a psychologist? (Review of Freud's l eady psychology of the neuroses: A historical perspective by Kenneth Levin) Contemporary Psychology, 1980, 25(2), 128-129.

115. Holt, R. R. Review of The scientific evaluation of Freud's theories and therapy by S. Fisher and R. P. Greenberg. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 1980,168(7),445.

116. Holt, R. R. Loevinger's measure of ego development: Reliability and national norms for short male and female forms. Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology, 1980,39,(5),909-920.

o i

Holt--11 117. Holt, R. R. Review of Symbol and neurosis: Selected papers of Lawrence S. Kubie. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 1980, 28(3), 8 703-7N.

118. Holt, R. R. H e great analyst re-analyzed. (Review of Freud:

Biologist of the mind. Beyond the psychoanalytic legend by Frank J. Sulloway) Contemporary Psychology, 1981, g(2J, 95-96.

119. Holt, R. R. The death and transfiguration of metapsychology. Inter-national Review of Psycho-Analysis, 1981, 8_(Part 2), 129-143.

120. Holt, R. R. A note on philosophy and the history of psychology's concern with imagery: Comentary on Ernest R. Hilgard's " Imagery and imagination in American psychology." Journal of Mental Imagery, 1981,5_(1),38-40.

121. Holt, R. R. Review of Freud, the man and the cause by Ronald W.

Clark. Review of Psychoanalytic Books, 1982,1(2),.1-13.

122. Holt, R. R. Comment on psychological stress workshop. In P. Walker, W. E. Fraise, J. J. Gordon 6 R. C. Johnson (Eds.), Workshop on 7sychological stress associated with the proposed restart of Three Mile Island, Unit 1. NUREG/CP-0026 MI'R-82W26. Washington, DC:

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1982. Pp. 76-89.

123. Holt, R. R. Occupational stress. In L. Goldberger 6 S. Breznitz (Eds.), Handbook of stress. New York: Macmillan/ Free Press, 1982.

124. Holt, R. R. Come migliorare la ricerca descrittiva in psicologia clinica [ Improving descri Psicologia Clinica (Rome)ptive research(By

,1982,1_(1). in clinical psychology].

invitation) 125. Holt, R. R. Family secrets (Review of M. Balmary, Psychoanalyzing i'

psychoanalysis: Freud and the hidden fault of the father). The Sciences,1982, E(8),16-28.

l Publications in press Holt, R. R. The manifest and latent meanings of metapsychology. he Annual of Psychoanalysis, in press.

Holt, R. R. Freud's impact upon modern morality and our world view.

In A. L. Caplan 4 Bruce Jennings (Eds.), Darwin, Marx, and Freud.

New York: Plenum, in press.

P Holt, R. R. Freud, the free will controversy, and prediction in personology. In R. A. Zucker, J. Aronoff 6 A. I. Rabin (Eds.),

Personality and the prediction of behavior. New York: Academic Press, in press.

__ _ --___ _, _