Introduction

1. The topic under investigation in the study is, weather dogs learn to tolerate or to adjust to a certain level of pain if they feel it is inescapable. The nature of this research in theoretical, because it has no practical use in the real world. And it is being done to prove Seligman’s theory.

2. The literature review that is recorded is this review includes experiments done in the past by Psychologist Pavlov; the harness that was used in this experament is the same as the one that was used in Pavlov’s experiment with the salivating dogs. They do not indicate that there is any information lacking in past experiments because this is the first time this experiment has been done. The experiment that involved Pavlov was only mentioned because the same harness was used.

3. The hypothesis under investigation is weather or not dogs learn tolerate or to adjust to a certain level of pain if they feel it is inescapable. The independent variables of this study are the dogs or any other subjects who are dropped from this study. The dependant variables of this study are the dogs, which remain and prove weather or non the theory is correct.
Method

4. The participants of this study are the psychologists record the results and the data which is received from the true participants the dogs which are being shocked. The participants of this stwere not compensated for their work in this study. And none of the dogs that participated in this study were dropped from this study.

5. The authors manipulated the independent variable by not dropping any of the dogs that participated in this experiment. They controlled the dependent variable by recording the results that they received after each trial of the dogs being shocked. The instruments that, they used were a Povlovian harness and electricity.
Results

6. The main findings of this experiment are that the dog that know they could not escape to harness would simply lay down and tolerate the electric shock. And the dogs that knew they could escape did.
 

Discussion

7.  The hypothesis of this experiment was supported by the data and research that was displayed in the charts and the tables that were organized.

8.  The author explained the findings of this report by stating the subjects by their codes he stated that the subjects followed the projected path and the animals that could escape did and the animals that couldn’t didn’t.

9. Based on my life experience the dogs’ acting in a submissive behavior was congruent with the behavior that I have known most dogs the display. I have personal experience with training dogs and the fact that these dogs were shocked and became submissive does not surprise me they will do almost anything to please their owner.

10. There were no areas of this study which I say that might have been flawed. There was also no evidence of bias in this study.

11. The author did not give any specific ways in which this experiment could have been made better. I have no Ideas on how to make this experiment better because I disagree with the treatment of those animals I think this type of experimentation should be banned.

12. The author proposed that a third operation should be tested this third operation should include independence between events. I have no suggestions for any additional studies.