Fluent Essays

how long does it take to finish a single paragraph summary? Milgram, Stanley. “Behavior Study of Obedience.” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 67 (1963): 371-378. General Procedure A procedure was devised which seems useful as a tool for studying obedience (Milgram, 1961). It consists of ordering a naive subject to administer electric shock to a victim. A simulated shock generator is used, with 30 clearly marked voltage levels that range from 15 to 450 volts. The instrument bears verbal designations that range from Slight Shock to Danger: Severe Shock. The responses of the victim, who is a trained confederate of the experimenter, are standardized. The orders to administer shocks are given to the naive subject in the context of a learning experiment ostensibly set up to study the effects of punishment on memory. As the experiment proceeds the naive subject is commanded to administer increasingly more intense shocks to the victim, even to the point of reaching the level marked Danger: Severe Shock. Internal resistances become stronger, and at a certain point the subject refuses to go on with the experiment. Behavior prior to this rupture is considered obedience, in that the subject complies with the commands of the experimenter. The point of rupture is the act of disobedience. A quantitative value is assigned to the subject’s performance based on the maximum intensity shock he is willing to administer before he refuses to participate further. Thus for any particular subject and for any particular experimental condition the degree of obedience may be specified with a numerical value. The crux of the study is to systematically vary the factors believed to alter the degree of obedience to the experimental commands. The technique allows important variables to be manipulated at several points in the experiment. One may vary aspects of the source of command, content and form of command, instrumentalities for its execution, target object, general social setting, etc. The problem, therefore, is not one of designing increasingly more numerous experimental conditions, but of selecting those that best illuminate the process of obedience from the sociopsychological standpoint. TABLE 1 Distribution of Age and Occupational Types in the Experiment (Note.–Total N540) OCCUPATIONS 20—29 years n 30—39 years n 40—50 years n PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL (OCCUPATIONS) Workers, skilled, and unskilled 4 5 6 37.5 Sales, business, and white-collar 3 6 7 40.0 Professional 1 5 3 22.5 Percentage of total (Age) 20 40 40 Related Studies The inquiry bears an important relation to philosophic analyses of obedience and authority (Arendt, 1958; Friedrich, 1958; Weber, 1947), an early experimental study of obedience by Frank (1944), studies in authoritarianism (Adorno, Frenkel- Brunswik, Levinson, & Sanford, 1950; Rokeach, 1961), and a recent series of analytic and empirical studies in social power (Cartwright, 1959). It owes much to the long concern with suggestion in social psychology, both in its normal forms (e.g., Binet, 1900) and in its clinical manifestations (Charcot, 1881). But it derives, in the first instance, from direct observation of a social fact; the individual who is commanded by a legitimate authority ordinarily obeys. Obedience comes easily and often. It is a ubiquitous and indispensable feature of social life. Method SUBJECTS The subjects were 40 males between the ages of 20 and 50, drawn from New Haven and the surrounding communities. Subjects were obtained by a newspaper advertisement and direct mail solicitation. Those who responded to the appeal believed they were to participate in a study of memory and learning at Yale University. A wide range of occupations is represented in the sample. Typical subjects were postal clerks, high school teachers, salesmen, engineers, and laborers. Subjects ranged in educational level from one who had not finished elementary school, to those who had doctorate and other professional degrees. They were paid $4.50 for their participation in the experiment. However, subjects were told that payment was simply for coming to the laboratory, and that the money was theirs no matter what happened after they arrived. Table 1 shows the proportion of age and occupational types assigned to the experimental condition. PERSONNEL AND LOCALE The experiment was conducted on the grounds of Yale University in the elegant interaction laboratory. (This detail is relevant to the perceived legitimacy of the experiment. In further variations, the experiment was dissociated from the university, with consequences for performance.) The role of experimenter was played by a 31-year-old high school teacher of biology. His manner was impassive, and his appearance somewhat stern throughout the experiment. He was dressed in a gray technician’s coat. The victim was played by a 47-year-old accountant, trained for the role; he was of Irish-American stock, whom most observers found mild-mannered and likable. PROCEDURE One naive subject and one victim (an accomplice) performed in each experiment. A pretext had to be devised that would justify the administration of electric shock by the naive subject. This was effectively accomplished by the cover story. After a general introduction on the presumed relation between punishment and learning, subjects were told:  But actually, we know very little about the effect of punishment on learning, because almost no truly scientific studies have been made of it in human beings.  For instance, we don’t know how much punishment is best for learning–and we don’t know how much difference it makes as to who is giving the punishment, whether an adult learns best from a younger or an older person than himself–or many things of that sort.  So in this study we are bringing together a number of adults of different occupations and ages. And we’re asking some of them to be teachers and some of them to be learners.  We want to find out just what effect different people have on each other as teachers and learners, and also what effect punishment will have on learning in this situation.  Therefore, I’m going to ask one of you to be the teacher here tonight and the other one to be the learner.  Does either of you have a preference? Subjects then drew slips of paper from a hat to determine who would be the teacher and who would be the learner in the experiment. The drawing was rigged so that the naive subject was always the teacher and the accomplice always the learner. (Both slips contained the word Teacher.) Immediately after the drawing, the teacher and learner were taken to an adjacent room and the learner was strapped into an electric chair apparatus. The experimenter explained that the straps were to prevent excessive movement while the learner was being shocked. The effect was to make it impossible for him to escape from the situation. An electrode was attached to the learner’s wrist, and electrode paste was applied to avoid blisters and burns. Subjects were told that the electrode was attached to the shock generator in the adjoining room. In order to improve credibility the experimenter declared, in response to a question by the learner: Although the shocks can be extremely painful, they cause no permanent tissue damage. Learning Task The lesson administered by the subject was a paired-associate learning task. The subject read a series of word pairs to the learner, and then read the first word of the pair along with four terms. The learner was to indicate which of the four terms had originally been paired with the first word. He communicated his answer by pressing one of four switches in front of him, which in turn lit up one of four numbered quadrants in an answer-box located atop the shock generator. Shock Generator The instrument panel consists of 30 lever switches set in a horizontal line. Each switch is clearly labeled with a voltage designation that ranges from 15 to 450 volts. There is a 15-volt increment from one switch to the next going from left to right. In addition, the following verbal designations are clearly indicated for groups of four switches going from left to right: Slight Shock, Moderate Shock, Strong Shock, Very Strong Shock, Intense Shock, Extreme Intensity Shock, Danger: Severe Shock. (Two switches after this last designation are simply marked XXX.) Upon depressing a switch: a pilot light corresponding to each switch is illuminated in bright red; an electric buzzing is heard; an electric blue light, labeled voltage energizer, flashes; the dial on the voltage meter swings to the right; various relay clicks are sounded. The upper left-hand corner of the generator is labeled Shock Generator, Type ZLB, Dyson Instrument Company, Waltham, Mass. Output 15 Volts—450 Volts. Details of the instrument were carefully handled to insure an appearance of authenticity. The panel was engraved by precision industrial engravers, and all components were of high quality. No subject in the experiment suspected that the instrument was merely a simulated shock generator.1 Sample Shock Each naive subject is given a sample shock on the shock generator, prior to beginning his run as teacher. This shock is always 45 volts, and is applied by pressing the third switch of the generator. The shock is applied to the wrist of the naive subject, and has its source in a 45-volt battery wired into the generator. This further convinces the subject of the authenticity of the generator. Page 372 Shock Instructions The subject is told to administer a shock to the learner each time he gives a wrong response. Moreover– and this is the key command–the subject is instructed to move one level higher on the shock generator each time the learner flashes a wrong answer. He is also instructed to announce the voltage level before administering a shock. This serves to continually remind subjects of the increasing intensity of shocks administered to the learner. Preliminary and Regular Run Pretests revealed that the procedure of reading words and administering shocks requires some practice before it can be handled smoothly. Therefore, immediately preceding the regular run, the teacher is given a preliminary series of 10 words to read to the learner. There are 3 neutral words in the practice series (i.e., words that the learner answers correctly), so that shocks are administered for 7 of the words, with the maximum shock at 105 volts (moderate shock). Almost all subjects master the procedure by the time the preliminary run is over. Subjects are then presented with a second list, and are told that the procedure is the same as for the first list; the experimenter adds, however:  When you get to the bottom of the list, repeat it over again, and continue giving shocks, until the learner has learned all the pairs correctly. The experimenter instructs the subject to,  start from 15 volts and increase the shock level one step each time the learner gives a wrong answer. Feedback from the Victim In all conditions the learner gives a predetermined set of responses to the word pair test, based on a schedule of approximately three wrong answers to one correct answer. In the present experimental condition no vocal response or other sign of protest is heard from the learner until Shock Level 300 is reached. When the 300-volt shock is administered, the learner pounds on the wall of the room in which he is bound to the electric chair. The pounding can be heard by the subject. From this point on, the learner’s answers no longer appear on the four-way panel. At this juncture, subjects ordinarily turn to the experimenter for guidance. The experimenter instructs the subject to treat the absence of a response as a wrong answer, and to shock the subject according to the usual schedule. He advises the subjects to allow 5—10 seconds before considering no response as a wrong answer, and to increase the shock level one step each time the learner fails to respond correctly. The learner’s pounding is repeated after the 315-volt shock is administered; afterwards he is not heard from, nor do his answers reappear on the four-way signal box. Experimenter Feedback At various points in the experiment the subject may turn to the experimenter for advice on whether he should continue to administer shocks. Or he may indicate that he does not wish to go on. It was important to standardize the experimenter’s responses to these inquiries and reactions. If the subject indicated his unwillingness to go on, the experimenter responded with a sequence of prods, using as many as necessary to bring the subject into line.  Prod 1: Please continue. or Please go on.  Prod 2: The experiment requires that you continue.  Prod 3: It is absolutely essential that you continue.  Prod 4: You have no other choice, you must go on. The prods were always made in sequence: Only if Prod 1 had been unsuccessful, could Prod 2 be used. If the subject refused to obey the experimenter after Prod 4, the experiment was terminated. The experimenter’s tone of voice was at all times firm, but not impolite. The sequence was begun anew on each occasion that the subject balked or showed reluctance to follow orders. Special prods. If the subject asked if the learner was liable to suffer permanent physical injury, the experimenter said:  Although the shocks may be painful, there is no permanent tissue damage, so please go on. [Followed by Prods 2, 3, and 4 if necessary.] If the subject said that the learner did not want to go on, the experimenter replied:  Whether the learner likes it or not, you must go on until he has learned all the word pairs correctly. So please go on. [Followed by Prods 2, 3, and 4 if necessary.] DEPENDENT MEASURES The primary dependent measure for any subject is the maximum shock he administers before he refuses to go any further. In Page 373 principle this may vary from 0 (for a subject who refuses to administer even the first shock) to 30 (for a subject who administers the highest shock on the generator). A subject who breaks off the experiment at any point prior to administering the thirtieth shock level is termed a defiant subject. One who complies with experimental commands fully, and proceeds to administer all shock levels commanded, is termed an obedient subject. Further Records With few exceptions, experimental sessions were recorded on magnetic tape. Occasional photographs were taken through one-way mirrors. Notes were kept on any unusual behavior occurring during the course of the experiments. On occasion, additional observers were directed to write objective descriptions of the subjects’ behavior. The latency and duration of shocks were measured by accurate timing devices. Interview and Dehoax Following the experiment, subjects were interviewed; open-ended questions, projective measures, and attitude scales were employed. After the interview, procedures were undertaken to assure that the subject would leave the laboratory in a state of well being. A friendly reconciliation was arranged between the subject and the victim, and an effort was made to reduce any tensions that arose as a result of the experiment. Results PRELIMINARY NOTIONS Before giving an account of the experimental results, it is instructive to consider how persons predict others will perform when commanded to administer powerful shocks to another person. Fourteen Yale seniors, all psychology majors, were provided with a detailed description of the experimental situation. They were asked to reflect carefully on it, and to predict the behavior of 100 hypothetical subjects. More specifically, they were instructed to plot the distribution of obedience of 100 Americans of diverse occupations, and ranging in age from 20 to 50 years, who were placed in the experimental situation. There was considerable agreement among the respondents on the expected behavior of hypothetical subjects. All respondents predicted that only an insignificant minority would go through to the end of the shock series. (The estimates ranged from 0 to 3\%; i.e., the most pessimistic member of the class predicted that of 100 persons, 3 would continue through to the most potent shock available on the shock generator–450 volts.) The class mean was 1.2\%. The question was also posed informally to colleagues of the author, and the most general feeling was that few if any subjects would go beyond the designation Very Strong Shock. RESULT OF EXPERIMENT I Subjects Accept Situation With few exceptions subjects were convinced of the reality of the experimental situation, that they were administering shocks to another person, and the most potent shocks were extremely painful. In the post- experimental interview subjects were asked: How painful to the learner were the last few shocks that you administered to him? Subjects were instructed to indicate their answers on a printed 14-point scale ranging from Not at all painful to Extremely painful. The modal response was 14 (Extremely painful) with the mean at 13.42. Signs of Extreme Tension Many subjects showed signs of nervousness in the experimental situation, and especially upon administering the more powerful shocks. In a large number of cases the degree of tension reached extremes that are rarely seen in sociopsychological laboratory studies. Subjects were observed to sweat, tremble, stutter, bite their lips, groan, and dig their fingernails into their flesh. These were characteristic rather than exceptional responses to the experiment. One sign of tension was the regular occurrence of nervous laughing fits. Fourteen of the 40 subjects showed definite signs of nervous laughter and smiling. The laughter seemed entirely out of place, even bizarre. Full-blown, uncontrollable seizures were observed for 3 subjects. On one occasion we observed a seizure so violently convulsive that it was necessary to call a halt to the experiment. The subject, a 46-year-old encyclopedia salesman, was seriously embarrassed by his untoward and uncontrollable behavior. In the post-experimental interviews subjects took pains to point out that they were not sadistic types, and that the laughter did not mean they enjoyed shocking the victim. Distribution of Scores It had been conjectured that persons would not, in general, agree to administer shocks beyond the level designated as Very Strong Shock. The distribution of maximum shocks for this experiment is shown in Table 2. The obtained distribution of scores deviates radically from the prediction. Page 374 TABLE 2 Distribution of Breakoff Points VERBAL DESIGNATION AND VOLTAGE INDICATION NUMBER OF SUBJECTS FOR WHOM THIS WAS MAXIMUM SHOCK Slight Shock 15 0 30 0 45 0 60 0 Moderate Shock 75 0 90 0 105 0 120 0 Strong Shock 135 0 150 0 165 0 180 0 Very Strong Shock 195 0 210 0 225 0 240 0 Intense Shock 255 0 270 0 285 0 300 5 Extreme Intensity Shock 315 4 330 2 345 1 360 1 Danger: Severe Shock 375 1 390 0 405 0 420 0 XXX 435 0 450 26 Upon command of the experimenter, each of the 40 subjects went beyond the expected break-off point. No subject stopped prior to administering Shock Level 20. (At this level–300 volts–the victim kicks on the wall and no longer provides answers to the teacher’s multiple-choice questions.) Of the 40 subjects, 5 refused to obey the experimental commands beyond the 300-volt level. Four more subjects administered one further shock, and then refused to go on. Two broke off at the 330-volt level, and 1 each at 345, 360, and 375 volts. Thus a total of 14 subjects defied the experimenter. It is instructive to reprint their remarks at the point of definance, as transcribed from the tape recordings: Page 375  [0124] I think he’s trying to communicate, he’s knocking. . . . Well it’s not fair to shock the guy . . . these are terrific volts. I don’t think this is very humane. . . . Oh, I can’t go on with this; no, this isn’t right. It’s a hell of an experiment. The guy is suffering in there. No, I don’t want to go on. This is crazy. [Subject refused to administer more shocks.]  [0123] He’s banging in there. I’m gonna chicken out. I’d like to continue, but I can’t do that to a man. . . . I’m sorry I can’t do that to a man. I’ll hurt his heart. You take your check. . . . No really, I couldn’t do it. These subjects were frequently in a highly agitated and even angered state. Sometimes, verbal protest was at a minimum, and the subject simply got up from his chair in front of the shock generator, and indicated that he wished to leave the laboratory. Of the 40 subjects, 26 obeyed the orders of the experimenter to the end, proceeding to punish the victim until they reached the most potent shock available on the shock generator. At that point, the experimenter called a halt to the session. (The maximum shock is labeled 450 volts, and is two steps beyond the designation: Danger: Severe Shock.) Although obedient subjects continued to administer shocks, they often did so under extreme stress. Some expressed reluctance to administer shocks beyond the 300-volt level, and displayed fears similar to those who defied the experimenter; yet they obeyed. After the maximum shocks had been delivered, and the experimenter called a halt to the proceedings, many obedient subjects heaved sighs of relief, mopped their brows, rubbed their fingers over their eyes, or nervously fumbled cigarettes. Some shook their heads, apparently in regret. Some subjects had remained calm throughout the experiment, and displayed only minimal signs of tension from beginning to end. Discussion The experiment yielded two findings that were surprising. The first finding concerns the sheer strength of obedient tendencies manifested in this situation. Subjects have learned from childhood that it is a fundamental breach of moral conduct to hurt another person against his will. Yet, 26 subjects abandon this tenet in following the instructions of an authority who has no special powers to enforce his commands. To disobey would bring no material loss to the subject; no punishment would ensue. It is clear from the remarks and outward behavior of many participants that in punishing the victim they are often acting against their own values. Subjects often expressed deep disapproval of shocking a man in the face of his objections, and others denounced it as stupid and senseless. Yet the majority complied with the experimental commands. This outcome was surprising from two perspectives: first, from the standpoint of predictions made in the questionnaire described earlier. (Here, however, it is possible that the remoteness of the respondents from the actual situation, and the difficulty of conveying to them the concrete details of the experiment, could account for the serious underestimation of obedience.) But the results were also unexpected to persons who observed the experiment in progress, through one-way mirrors. Observers often uttered expressions of disbelief upon seeing a subject administer more powerful shocks to the victim. These persons had a full acquaintance with the details of the situation, and yet systematically underestimated the amount of obedience that subjects would display. The second unanticipated effect was the extraordinary tension generated by the procedures. One might suppose that a subject would simply break off or continue as his conscience dictated. Yet, this is very far from what happened. There were striking reactions of tension and emotional strain. One observer related:  I observed a mature and initially poised businessman enter the laboratory smiling and confident. Within 20 minutes he was reduced to a twitching, stuttering wreck, who was rapidly approaching a point of nervous collapse. He constantly pulled on his earlobe, and twisted his hands. At one point he pushed his fist into his forehead and muttered: Oh God, let’s stop it. And yet he continued to respond to every word of the experimenter, and obeyed to the end. Any understanding of the phenomenon of obedience must rest on an analysis of the particular conditions in which it occurs. The following features of the experiment go some distance in explaining the high amount of obedience observed in the situation. 1. The experiment is sponsored by and takes place on the grounds of an institution of unimpeachable reputation, Yale University. It may be reasonably presumed that the personnel are competent and reputable. The importance of this background authority is now being studied by conducting a series of experiments outside of New Haven, and without any visible ties to the university. Page 376 2. The experiment is, on the face of it, designed to attain a worthy purpose–advancement of knowledge about learning and memory. Obedience occurs not as an end in itself, but as an instrumental element in a situation that the subject construes as significant, and meaningful. He may not be able to see its full significance, but he may properly assume that the experimenter does. 3. The subject perceives that the victim has voluntarily submitted to the authority system of the experimenter. He is not (at first) an unwilling captive impressed for involuntary service. He has taken the trouble to come to the laboratory presumably to aid the experimental research. That he later becomes an involuntary subject does not alter the fact that, initially, he consented to participate without qualification. Thus he has in some degree incurred an obligation toward the experimenter. 4. The subject, too, has entered the experiment voluntarily, and perceives himself under obligation to aid the experimenter. He has made a commitment, and to disrupt the experiment is a repudiation of this initial promise of aid. 5. Certain features of the procedure strengthen the subject’s sense of obligation to the experimenter. For one, he has been paid for coming to the laboratory. In part this is canceled out by the experimenter’s statement that: 6. Of course, as in all experiments, the money is yours simply for coming to the laboratory. From this point on, no matter what happens, the money is yours.2 7. From the subject’s standpoint, the fact that he is the teacher and the other man the learner is purely a chance consequence (it is determined by drawing lots) and he, the subject, ran the same risk as the other man in being assigned the role of learner. Since the assignment of positions in the experiment was achieved by fair means, the learner is deprived of any basis of complaint on this count. (A similar situation obtains in Army units, in which–in the absence of volunteers–a particularly dangerous mission may be assigned by drawing lots, and the unlucky soldier is expected to bear his misfortune with sportsmanship.) 8. There is, at best, ambiguity with regard to the prerogatives of a psychologist and the corresponding rights of his subject. There is a vagueness of expectation concerning what a psychologist may require of his subject, and when he is overstepping acceptable limits. Moreover, the experiment occurs in a closed setting, and thus provides no opportunity for the subject to remove these ambiguities by discussion with others. There are few standards that seem directly applicable to the situation, which is a novel one for most subjects. 9. The subjects are assured that the shocks administered to the subject are painful but not dangerous. Thus they assume that the discomfort caused the victim is momentary, while the scientific gains resulting from the experiment are enduring. 10. Through Shock Level 20 the victim continues to provide answers on the signal box. The subject may construe this as a sign that the victim is still willing to play the game. It is only after Shock Level 20 that the victim repudiates the rules completely, refusing to answer further. 11. These features help to explain the high amount of obedience obtained in this experiment. Many of the arguments raised need not remain matters of speculation, but can be reduced to testable propositions to be confirmed or disproved by further experiments.3 12. The following features of the experiment concern the nature of the conflict which the subject faces. 13. The subject is placed in a position in which he must respond to the competing demands of two persons: the experimenter and the victim. The conflict must be resolved by meeting the demands of one or the other; satisfaction of the victim and the experimenter are mutually exclusive. Moreover, the resolution must take the form of a highly visible action, that of continuing to shock the victim or breaking off the experiment. Thus the subject is forced into a Professor Carlisle, FSCJ Rubric for DESCRIPTIVE WRITING in an academic paper RUBRIC: DESCRIPTIVE WRITING (academic paper) In an unacceptable, poor, or marginal descriptive paper, In a successful descriptive paper, A really good descriptive paper, descriptions are not clear or focused. The reader cannot experience or vividly picture what is being described. descriptions are unorganized or poorly organized. descriptions don’t support the thesis or are not clearly corrected to the thesis. descriptions are written in vague language or in words that lack specificity. descriptive comparisons, metaphors, and analogies are not well thought out. When imagined, comparisons don’t make sense or are distracting. descriptive language and phrasing are cliché. For example, people or objects “paint a picture,” or “draw the eye,” or “think outside of the box,” or create a “perfect storm,” or are “good to go,” or “ “fly in the face of” something, or do anything “at the end of the day,” or after anything “has been said and done.” descriptions use words that draw attention to themselves rather than to what is being described. For example, “Her bereavement left her feeling evacuated,” instead of “Her grief left her empty.” descriptions may be poorly written or grammatically incorrect.  descriptions are clear and focused. The reader is able to vividly picture or imagine what is being descripted.  descriptions are well organized. Their organization seems natural or helpful.  descriptions support the thesis and their purpose, as relates to the thesis, is clear.  descriptions are written in language that is clear and specific.  descriptive comparisons, metaphors, and analogies are clear. What they describe is logical, natural, or otherwise makes sense.  descriptions do NOT rely on cliché.  descriptions are well written and grammatically correct. exhibits the same traits as those found in a successful descriptive paper,  plus a really good descriptive paper demonstrates a more complicated or nuanced understanding of how to use tone, style, and art and expresses a profound engagement with the subject it is describing. Professor Carlisle, FSCJ. Rubric based in part upon work by Richard A. Lanham’s Revising Prose RUBRIC: CONCISION (academic paper) Unacceptable, poor, or marginal Successful In poorly written papers, sentences do not do enough work. Sentence length should be determined by the amount of work being done, by the amount of real content being delivered, and no sentence should be longer than necessary. • Sentences that do not do enough work, that do not provide adequate or meaningful content, should be cut down and combined with other sentences to create strong, concise sentences. • Sentences that do a lot of work, sentences that have powerful content, should be short and direct. Do not hide important content in overly long or complicated sentences. In poorly written papers, sentences are often full of overblown, pretentious language and cliché. • Do not use words whose only purpose is to “sound smart.” Use words and phrases that most clearly and powerfully convey your ideas. The purpose of writing is to communicate. The more complicated and sophisticated your ideas, the more important it is to write clearly and directly. Dressing simplistic ideas in fancy words only accentuates their lack of sophistication and depth. • Do not use clichéd phrasing. Absolutely do NOT use “at the end of the day” or “in society today.” In poorly written papers, sentences are often full of prepositional phrases (a prepositional phrase is the preposition, the object of the preposition, and the modifiers between the two). Prepositional phrases often “sound good” but are really just fluff, empty of real significance. • Do not overuse prepositional phrases. Pay attention to how you use prepositions of time (after, around, at, before, between, during, since, from, until, on), place (above, across, against, along, between, beyond, by down, in, inside, into, near, through, toward, under), direction (at, for, on, to, in, into, onto, between), manner (by, on, in, like, with), and relation (by, with, of, for, by, like, as). If you are using prepositional phrases to “sound academic,” STOP. In poorly written papers, sentences often rely too much on “to be” verbs. • Do not use a “to be” verb, such as “is,” “am,” “are,” “was,” “were,” “being,” “been,” and “be,” in place of a stronger verb. (For example, “he was thinking hard,” instead of “he brooded.”) To be” verbs are weak and insubstantial. Use verbs that have force and don’t expect your nouns and noun modifiers to do all of the work. Poorly written sentences often contain redundancies (for example, “In Carol Dweck’s article she argues…) and needless wordiness (for example, “My thing, is that I, personally, believe…” or “the reason why is because…” In poorly written papers, sentences often use a formula that sounds academic, but is actually just wasted space: “blah, blah, blah is that…” or “… this is blah, blah, blah” • Skip all the blah, blah, blah, and get rid of the “is that” or “this is.” Poorly written papers often rely on metacommentary. Metacommentary, telling your reader what or why you are doing or noticing as you write or explain, is usually not necessary or appropriate and is often a waste of space. (For example, “As I explained previously,” and “As one reads the texts one understands that they argue…”) Poorly written papers often rely on positioning to move the reader through the paper. These papers use the place or position of an idea or event as presented in the current paper, in another text, or as occurred in history. (For example, “Then the texts go on to explain that….”) Successful papers are made up of sentences that do real work. (For example, a successful paper will name a text, introduce its author and its sociohistorical context in one sentence rather than in three separate sentences.) Successful papers are made up sentences that use appropriately academic language and tone without stooping to pretentious or overblown word choices or unnecessarily complicated structures. Successful papers do not rely on clichéd phrasing. Successful papers are made up of direct and active sentences that do not contain strings of fluffy prepositional phrases. Successful papers contain sentences with strong active verbs. Successful papers contain sentences that are clear and direct, sentences that prioritize meaning over style. Successful papers do not rely on metacommentary or positioning as a substitute for real explanation, connection, or analysis.