Coca Cola Research Paper
General Psychology 10143
Portfolio Assignment
The government charged the Coca-Cola Company with marketing and selling a beverage that was injurious to health. They charged the company with producing a beverage that produced serious mental and motor deficits due to the use of synthetic caffeine. They also claimed that Coca-Cola was misbranded because its name implied that the product contained coca, yet it did not contain the whole coca leaf (because the cocaine was removed) and the name constituted a false and misleading design. The government hoped to prove that Coca-Cola caused cognitive, sensory and motor deficits and that Coca-Cola was adulterated because it’s caffeine content was an added ingredient and injurious to health. (Pendergrast, 1993)
The purpose of the research in the government case against Coca-Cola was to determine the effects of caffeine on cognitive, sensory and motor abilities-(e.g.-hand steadiness, reaction time, mental calculations, color discrimination, and speed in a cancellation task). (Hutt, 2001)
The control group in the study received placebo capsules, not actual caffeine. The experimental group in the study received the caffeine capsules and later, actual doses of the Coca-Cola syrup.
The purpose of the double-blind study during the first week, which involved no caffeine consumption, was to acquire base-line data on the subjects and the dependant measures. During the following weeks, caffeine was given by capsule, then with Coca-Cola syrup, some with caffeine and some without.
The results of the study found that Coca-Cola acted as a mild stimulant for both motor and cognitive performance, with no evidence of the deleterious effects on mental and motor performance that the government claimed. (Ludy T. Benjamin Jr., 2009)
The research was difficult to conduct because the government only had facts on animal research and knew that it need research that
Portfolio Assignment
The government charged the Coca-Cola Company with marketing and selling a beverage that was injurious to health. They charged the company with producing a beverage that produced serious mental and motor deficits due to the use of synthetic caffeine. They also claimed that Coca-Cola was misbranded because its name implied that the product contained coca, yet it did not contain the whole coca leaf (because the cocaine was removed) and the name constituted a false and misleading design. The government hoped to prove that Coca-Cola caused cognitive, sensory and motor deficits and that Coca-Cola was adulterated because it’s caffeine content was an added ingredient and injurious to health. (Pendergrast, 1993)
The purpose of the research in the government case against Coca-Cola was to determine the effects of caffeine on cognitive, sensory and motor abilities-(e.g.-hand steadiness, reaction time, mental calculations, color discrimination, and speed in a cancellation task). (Hutt, 2001)
The control group in the study received placebo capsules, not actual caffeine. The experimental group in the study received the caffeine capsules and later, actual doses of the Coca-Cola syrup.
The purpose of the double-blind study during the first week, which involved no caffeine consumption, was to acquire base-line data on the subjects and the dependant measures. During the following weeks, caffeine was given by capsule, then with Coca-Cola syrup, some with caffeine and some without.
The results of the study found that Coca-Cola acted as a mild stimulant for both motor and cognitive performance, with no evidence of the deleterious effects on mental and motor performance that the government claimed. (Ludy T. Benjamin Jr., 2009)
The research was difficult to conduct because the government only had facts on animal research and knew that it need research that
Bibliography: CNBC. (2009). Coca-Cola: The Real Story Behind The Real Thing. CNBC. Division of Research: Moore School of Business, U. o. (2005). The Economic Impact of The Coca-Cola System. Retrieved November 2010, from http://bbr.unl.edu/aubertest/documents/Coca-cola_South_Africa_report.pdf Hutt, P. P. (2001). The Image and Politics of Coca-Cola: From the Early Years to the Present. Ludy T. Benjamin Jr., P. (2009, February). Pop psychology: The man who saved Coca-Cola. APA Monitor , p. 18. Pendergrast, M. (1993). For God, Country and Coca-Cola. In M. Pendergrast, For God, Country and Coca-Cola (pp. 72-75; 118-124). New York: Collier Books.