WALTER R. MILES AND ALCOHOL

Running head: WALTER R. MILES AND ALCOHOL

Walter R. Miles and Alcohol: Experimental Treatment and Prohibition Involvement

Tyler M. Miller

Emporia State University

Abstract

Walter Miles lived from 1885 to 1978, during that time his research interests varied. I discuss Miles’ research on the effects of alcohol in men at the Carnegie Nutrition Laboratory from 1914-1922. His development of apparatuses receives special attention. After his time at the Carnegie Nutrition Laboratory, Miles became involved in prohibition council work. I report government releases and correspondence regarding prohibition to and from Miles. Primary sources (e.g. experimental notes, photographs and correspondence) collected at the Archives of the History of American Psychology comprise the majority of source material.

Walter R. Miles and Alcohol: Experimental Treatment and Prohibition Involvement

Miles was an eclectic researcher. His dissertation at the University of Iowa investigated the accuracy of the human voice in simple pitch singing, at Stanford University, he collaborated with legendary football coach Pop Warner; he also worked closely with the United States Military and made significant contributions to the United States Air Force. The purpose of this paper is to report Miles’ investigations on the effects of alcohol on humans at the Carnegie Nutrition Laboratory (CNL) in Boston, MA from 1914 to 1922 and his subsequent prohibition involvement.

Biographical Sketch

Miles was a member of the Society of Experimental Psychologists, lectured widely, nationally and internationally, and was president of the American Psychological Association in 1932. From the correspondence record, the public viewed him as an expert on a number of topics. The Miles collection at the Archive of the History of American Psychology (AHAP) preserves the account of his professional and much of his personal life.

Miles was born in 1885 and lived in the Dakota Territories until age eight when he and his family moved to Oregon. He began his undergraduate education at Pacific College in Oregon and received his bachelor’s degree in 1908 from Earlham College in Indiana. In 1913, he earned his PhD from the University of Iowa under the supervision of Carl Seashore. Seashore had rigorous requirements for students to develop apparatuses, it was then Miles developed his affinity for developing apparatus. After he earned his PhD, Miles went to Wesleyan College in Connecticut to serve as a substitute for Raymond Dodge while Dodge was on sabbatical at the Carnegie Nutrition Laboratory (CNL) in Boston, MA.

At Wesleyan, Miles refined his creative and apparatus maintenance abilities by working with equipment left behind by Dodge. When Dodge returned to Wesleyan, he convinced Francis Benedict at the CNL to hire Miles. Subsequently, Miles began his employment at CNL in 1914 and stayed there for 8 years (Goodwin, 2003). During his employment, Miles completed research in line with the goal of the laboratory, which was to study the effects of small doses of ethyl alcohol in man.

Experimental Treatment

To investigate alcohol’s effect on man, Miles relied on a number of conventional detection methods, including patellar reflex, skin temperature, pulse rate, reaction time and visual acuity. He also used unconventional methods, such as the pursuit pendulum, pursuit meter, and ataxiameter.

Pursuit pendulum. In the spring of 1917, researchers at the laboratory determined accuracy of hand eye coordination in a pendulum task positively correlated with aviator’s progress in flight training. However, the tests were too complex for the air force to adopt. Therefore, Miles designed a simplified apparatus and called it the pursuit pendulum (see Figure 1). He designed the pendulum with reservoir to swing over a table or sink. As the pendulum swung, a small stream of water flowed from a hole at the tip of the pendulum. The goal was for the participant to catch as much water as possible. Miles concluded the test would be of “general usefulness” (Carnegie Nutrition Laboratory, 1919, p. 2)

Insert Figure 1 here

Pursuitmeter. Miles also reported the pursuitmeter in the annual report of 1919, writing, “a considerable amount of time has been spent during the year in perfecting and rebuilding this apparatus” (Carnegie Nutrition Laboratory, 1919, p. 2). Miles had begun thinking and about the project in 1917. In a personal journal, Miles reported going to the standardizing laboratory of General Electric Co. to retrieve platinum strings for a string galvanometer. While there, he told W. B. St. Clair of his desire to arrange a setup that would provide a subject with a continuous task and automatically record the adequacy of the performance (Miles, 1917). Miles’ idea was for a needle of an electrical instrument to deflect back and forth unpredictably. The participant would keep the needle of the instrument at zero. He had other’s apparatuses in mind

(i.e. Seashore’s psychoergograph, River’s McDougal machine) but none automatically accounted for error and adequacy of the behavior and required laborious computations before analysis. Miles continued to develop the apparatus and ultimately received help from St. Clair and Troland of Harvard University (Miles, 1917).

By 1919, Walter Miles had conducted preliminary experiments using the pursuitmeter (see Figure 2) to obtain practice curves, examine optimal lighting conditions and to improve the experimental routine. In an oral presentation summary for the Congrès de Physiologie (n.d.), presumably, after the apparatus was complete, Miles described the pursuitmeter as “a continuous task, uniform in kind yet so varied that attention to it is constantly necessary. It requires both quickness and accuracy and places no limit on fine coordinations” (Miles, n.d., p. 1). He also notes, researchers could analyze data immediately without additional computations. Miles was proud of his retooled pursuitmeter, in a letter composed in 1921, he appealed to Howard Warren, owner of the Psychological Review Company and the Journal of Experimental Psychology, to publish an article entitled “The Pursuitmeter.” According to Miles, in his letter, the article principally dealt with the description of the apparatus along with several illustrations (personal communications, 1921). His goal of the article was to present the apparatus he considered an innovation. To my knowledge, Warren did not publish “The Pursuitmeter.”

Insert Figure 2 here

Ataxiameter. Other than blueprints and photographs, the Miles collection at AHAP contains little regarding the development of the ataxiameter in comparison to the experimental notes and musings that accompany the pursuitmeter and pursuit pendulum material. Due to the existence of blueprints, drawings and other construction-oriented information, I assume Miles was central to its development, if not its principal originator.

Miles used the ataxiameter (see Figure 3) to measure body sway. The participant wore headgear with four cables extending to pulleys threaded through a frame above the participant. When a participant leaned left, the left pulley would require less cable length while the opposite pulley required more length. The experimenter continuously recorded each of the four cables’ length to determine sway. Exactly how it recorded body sway is not clear; however, much of Miles’ research employed kymographs.

Insert Figure 3 here

Results. As previously mentioned the goal of the Carnegie Nutrition laboratory was to investigate the effects of small doses of ethyl alcohol on man. Early research completed by Miles investigated alcohol using detection methods such as typewriting proficiency/errors, patellar reflex and skin temperature. His later work dealt less with the conventional detection methods and more so with the methods he developed. In a graph published in 1924, Miles organized four studies according to detection methods. The first of such studies employed pulse rate, at rest and working, lid reflexes, amplitude and latency, word reaction time, two types of eye movement, finger speed, and three typewriting tasks. The last of the included studies employed pulse rate, skin temperature, patellar reflex, station, as measured by the ataxiameter, finger speed, pursuit pendulum and pursuit meter.

Results of tests included in Miles’ earlier studies contribute to the understanding of the effects of alcohol on man, but I would argue they are less applicable than later tests of alcohol’s effects. Tests such as the pursuitmeter and pendulum integrated measures of eye movement, reaction time and coordination to provide context and increasing generalizability.

One can find published results from Miles’ alcohol studies elsewhere (e.g. Miles, 1924); therefore, I do not report detail here. In general, Miles found one liter of a 2.75% alcohol solution sufficient to cause detrimental effects on humans. The Miles collection at AHAP preserves unique accounts of participant’s subjective experiences. One such participant reported, “A slight whirling about my head… the difficulty is that I feel hazy, and when I turn quickly it seems that my brain turns a little later than my body” (Miles, 1921, p. 3). In these subjective notes, Miles also reported naturalistic observations, “The subject was talkative but there was a difficulty about his speaking. He would sometimes move his lips considerably before any vocalization occurred” (Miles, 1921, p. 3)

Prohibition Involvement

In January of 1919, a popular vote ratified the eighteenth amendment to the United States Constitution. By January of the following year, the amendment went into effect, making manufacture, sale, and transportation of alcohol strictly prohibited. Initial tests of its effectiveness proved prohibition worked, deaths and hospitalizations due to alcohol plummeted, industry became more efficient, domestic violence decreased as did drunkenness and assault; prisons needed fewer jail cells (Behr, 1996).

Wayne Wheeler of the Anti-Saloon League claimed, “Prohibition is decreasing crime,” and “prohibition has saved a million lives” (Behr, 1996, p. 148). One could argue the Carnegie Nutrition Laboratory’s, and thus, Miles’ investigations undergirded the legitimacy of prohibition. However, trends justifying the prohibition of alcohol and corruption would later reveal prohibition could not decrease crime and alcohol deaths indefinitely. By 1925, bootlegging had corrupted city, state and federal officials, even agents in the Prohibition Enforcement agency succumbed to large bribes bootleggers were accustomed to doling out to officials to ignore illegal activity (Behr). Cognizant of increasing corruption and public unrest regarding, the federal government organized a prohibition advisory council.

Bureau of Prohibition Advisory Council. A. W. W. Woodcock, director of the Bureau of Prohibition, invited Miles to become a member of the Bureau of Prohibition Advisory Council in April of 1931 (personal communication, April 15, 1931). Honored, Miles accepted Woodcock’s invitation, writing, “It will be a pleasure to meet with you on these important problems” (personal communication, April 17, 1931). The advisory council involved psychologists, political scientists, biologists, and other disciplines alike. Other members included Emory Johnson, Richard Cabot, William Carpenter, Charles Gehlke, Susan Kingsbury, Samuel Lindsay, Samuel May, Roderick McKenzie, and Charles Pipkin.

The purpose of the Bureau of Prohibition Advisory Council was to explore the effectiveness of the eighteenth amendment by preparing a program of research for graduate schools around the country (Bureau of Prohibition, 1931). Additionally, its purpose was to “act to some extent, as a clearing center, answering questions or aiding individuals in securing information that may assist them in their studies” (On Operation and Effect of the Eighteenth Amendment, 1931, p. 2 ). Examples of questions include: “Alcohol: Is its use as a beverage useful or harmful? Why should it not be place on the same basis as opium?” (see Appendix for complete list). Woodcock emphasized that no “special objective is asked for,” and “it is the facts that are wanted,” however a careful reading of the questions posed by the council would no doubt expose the real intention of the council, which was, in my opinion, to undergird the prohibition of alcohol (Bureau of Prohibition, p. 2).

After its formation, Emory Johnson, as chairperson of the research advisory council, composed a letter to the deans and directors of research in graduate schools of American Universities. In the letter, he explained the purpose of the council and provided suggestions on procedure. He also argued people are aware of the social, economic and psychological problems associated with alcohol assumption, oddly though, since the adoption of eighteenth amendment scientific studies concerning such problems decreased. The goal of the council then was to stimulate research in the area of alcohol and the operation of the eighteenth amendment.

Prohibition Correspondence

Despite his research council involvement, I found no examples of directed student research in the Miles collection at AHAP. I report Miles’ council involvement because it exposed Miles and his work to the public. Soon after his appointment, Miles received numerous letters from special interest groups including the American Business Men’s Prohibition Foundation, The National Prohibition Emergency Committee, the Texas Women’s Democratic Association, and Wheeler’s Anti-Saloon League. Many of the letters Miles received were to seek counsel on matters of alcohol nutrition or to assist in the production of propaganda like material. To scientific questions, Miles promptly responded with results of research. To those who sought his assistance in the dissemination of information citing deleterious effects of alcohol, he politely denied.

Miles received one such letter from the Anti-Saloon League and its superintendent of the Texas division, Rev. Atticus Webb. In the letter, Rev. Webb criticized past investigations of alcohol prohibition for failing to recognize favorable aspects and focusing on the unfavorable aspects. The reverend also complained members of the council were from predominantly “wet” states and that humankind is subject to their environment (personal communication, May 22, 1931). To this, Miles cordially defended the fact-finding mission of the research program and thanked Rev. Webb for his letter (personal communication, June 5, 1931).

Miles and Alcohol

In an address to the First International Congress of Mental Hygiene, Miles commented, somewhat fatalistically, “because human beings generally crave ameliorative and pleasurable experiences and relaxations they have valued and have continued the use of alcohol throughout the ages of man’s history” (Miles, 1930, p. 6). However, he offers some hope for moderation when he wrote:

Human beings are somewhat like creatures that have been cast overboard into the sea. We have been forced into intimate contact with the substances of nature. We cannot escape, we cannot banish these things from existence. Some of the substances of nature have long fooled, fretted, and annoyed him, but he will certainly eventually learn to control his appetite for these things and to manage his life by mental strategy. (Emerson, 1934, p. 236)

Rare were Miles’ connotations of moral judgment on the subject of alcohol. Commonly, Miles eluded attempts of reporters and others to classify him as either a prohibition supporter or detractor. Later in his career, he commented, in an interview, that he wished alcohol would cause a person to curtail one’s activities, like a headache, rather than undertake them (“Miles sees value,” 1931). He also noted that the detrimental physiological effects and increased self-confidence was the central problem faced by society.

The Miles collection at the Archives of the History of American Psychology consistently reveals a scientific conservative. When discussing alcohol and society, he came out neither against alcohol or its prohibition. Walter R. Miles’ studies were important and creative investigations into the effects of alcohol on human efficiency, through the collection at the archives, they will remain that way.

References

Behr, E. (1996). Prohibition: Thirteen years that changed America. New York: Arcade.

Bureau of Prohibition. (1931). Bureau of Prohibition Advisory Research Council. Washington, D. C.: Woodcock, A. W. W.

Carnegie Nutrition Laboratory (1919). Annual Report. Boston, MA:

Goodwin, J. C. (2003). An insider’s look at experimental psychology in America. David B. Baker (Ed.), Thick description and fine texture: Studies in the history of psychology (pp. 57-75). Akron, OH: University of Akron Press.

Miles, W. R. (1917). [Attention Recorder]. Unpublished. Archives of the History of American Psychology.

Miles, W. R. (1921). [Experimental Notes]. Unpublished. Archives of the History of American Psychology.

Miles, W. R. (1924). Action of dilute alcohol on human subjects. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 10, 333-336.

Miles, W. R. (1930, May). Psychological factors in Alcoholism. Paper presented at the First International Congress on Mental Hygiene, Washington D. C.

Miles, W. R. (1934). Psychological effects of alcohol in man. In Haven Emerson (Eds.), Alcohol. Its Effects on Man (pp. 224-262) New York, NY: D. Appleton-Century.

Miles, W. R. (n.d.). The pursuit meter: An apparatus for measuring the adequacy of neuro-muscular coordination. Paper presented at the Conrès De Physiologie, (no location).

Miles sees value in new dry study. (1931, May 12) New Haven Evening Register, pp. 1,5. .

On Operation and Effect of the Eighteenth Amendment. (1931, May). [Report to dean of graduate studies at various American universities].

Appendix

Link Broken.

Author Note

Tyler M. Miller, Department of Psychology and Special Education, Emporia State University.

I wish to thank everyone at the Archives of the History of American Psychology, especially David Baker and Dorothy Gruich for their support and making my internship at the archives possible.

Please send correspondence to Emporia State University, c/o Dr. Cathy Grover, 1200 Commercial, Emporia, KS 66801.

Figure Captions

Figure 1. Miles designed a pendulum with reservoir to swing over a table or sink. As the pendulum swung, a small stream of water flowed from a hole at the tip of the pendulum. The participant (seated) caught as much water as possible.

Figure 2. Miles’ pursuitmeter. An electrical current causes the needle of the device to deflect back and forth unpredictably. The participant (right) kept the needle of the instrument at zero. Other devices recorded the adequacy of the participant’s performance.

Figure 3. The participant wore headgear with four cables extending to pulleys threaded through a frame above the participant. When a participant leaned left, the left pulley required less cable length while the opposite pulley required more length.