FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W3082140509> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W3082140509 abstract "The number and quality of students that he mentored during his long career is impressive. In addition, to authors of this article they included Gary E. Schwartz, Alan D. Sirota, Richard S. Surwit, John L. Reeves, and Iris Goldstein, just to mention some. Dave considered the chance to work with talented students and colleagues , one the great rewards of academic life, and he was able to create life-time family-like bonds in his lab that went way beyond normal academic collegiality. Even in the days of greater formality, particularly at Harvard, one rarely heard his students call him “Dr. Shapiro,” only “Dave.” With early interest in what is now known as mind-body medicine, he was sought after as a mentor by students from throughout the Boston area and beyond, and he selflessly supported their interests with limitless time, laboratory support, and encouragement, without ever treating them narrowly as assistants in his own particular projects of the day. But they regularly became interested in his work because it was so compelling. Also, added to his warmth and supportive nature, Dave was a demanding mentor. His standards for intellectual rigor were uncompromising, communicated by his example as well as his feedback. Criticisms never were put-downs, only encouragement to do better. The only fear felt by students was that associated with trying to raise themselves to his standards. Dave often referred to his “karma” when reminiscing about his life. As luck would have it, he arrived on the shores of France as a soldier on May 8, 1945: the same day the Nazis surrendered. He nevertheless was among the American troops celebrated for liberating the Continent. Indeed, although not a political activist, he was a man of peace and disagreed with American war in Vietnam. Through letters to draft boards and biofeedback, he helped some of his students avoid being sent there. While serving in the army Dave took advantage of education afforded to troops at that time, and this launched his career in psychology. After discharge, he received his bachelor's degree from the University of Illinois in 1948 and his PhD from the University of Michigan in 1953. His first interests were in social psychology, publishing several articles on the nature of psychological traits (Bruner, Shapiro, & Tagiuri, 1958; Perlmutter & Shapiro, 1957; Shapiro & Tagiuri, 1958). This was followed by an interest in group processes (Arsenian, Semrad, & Shapiro, 1962; Semrad, Kanter, Shapiro, & Arsenian, 1963) and operant conditioning (Levin & Shapiro, 1962). At the dawn of the field of psychophysiology he collaborated with Herbert Leiderman doing psychophysiological recording of human interaction (Leiderman & Shapiro, 1963, 1964; Shapiro, Leiderman, & Morningstar, 1964) and basic research on the measurement of skin potentials (Leiderman & Shapiro, 1964; Shapiro & Leiderman, 1964). Dave had a talent for and deep interest in the application of technology for studying psychophysiological processes. His contributions included an early article on time series analysis of physiological data (Leiderman & Shapiro, 1962), some of the first articles on computer analysis of physiological data (Dolan & Shapiro, 1981; Tursky, Shapiro & Leiderman, 1966; Tursky, Shapiro, & Schwartz, 1972), and, in his later years, articles on ambulatory monitoring, as described below. Clinical and social psychology in Boston in the 1960’s tended to be more theoretical than empirical, but Dave was a rigorous empiricist. In his kind and gentle way, he regularly questioned and challenged the cherished assumptions of the day, both among his students and in meetings with colleagues, while commanding respect and often comradeship from those whose views he challenged, whether they be psychoanalysts or staunch behaviorists. One of his more famous academic confrontations was with the operant conditioning orthodoxy of the time, which held that autonomic nervous system activity could be conditioned only by Pavlovian processes, and that operant control was impossible. Collaborating now with the great engineer and psychophysiologist Bernard Tursky and his students Andrew Crider and Gary Schwartz, Dave countered this orthodoxy with a series of classic studies showing that skin potential responses could be brought under operant control as completely as bar pressing in a rat (Crider, Schwartz, & Shapiro, 1970; Crider, Shapiro, & Tursky, 1966; Shapiro & Crider, 1967; Shapiro, Crider, & Tursky, 1964; Shapiro, Tursky, & Schwartz, 1970). In a dramatic demonstration of operant control without involvement of the skeletal muscles, the brave and equally inquisitive young psychiatrist, Lee Birk, volunteered to be curarized by Dave and his team, and demonstrated that operant control of skin potential responses was possible even with greatly diminished muscular control, thus contributing to the conclusion that autonomic activity could be brought under direct operant control (Birk, Crider, Shapiro, & Tursky, 1966). Collaborating with Crider, Tursky, Schwartz, Surwit, and others Dave also demonstrated operant control of cardiovascular functions, including heart rate (Reeves & Shapiro, , 1982; Victor, Mainardi, & Shapiro, 1978), blood pressure (Crider et al., 1970; Shapiro, Tursky, & Schwartz, 1970), and finger blood flow (Surwit, Shapiro, & Feld, 1976). This work lay the foundation for the field of biofeedback, which rightfully considers him to be one of its major pioneers. Dave's openness to innovative and alternative approaches to treating psychosomatic disease was not limited to biofeedback. In addition, to his work on biofeedback, he also studied the physiological concomitants of Zen, Yoga, and Transcendental Meditation (Becker & Shapiro, 1981). In later years, his wife Shirley got him interested in Iyengar yoga, both as a practitioner and as a scientist (Shahabi, Naliboff, Cabanis, & Shapiro, 2016; Shapiro et al., 2007). His interest in these approaches to what is now called “mind body medicine” began in times when this topic was looked at with skepticism. His rigorous research contributed significantly to the approach's growing credibility. Shortly after his move to UCLA in 1974 Dave developed an ingenious system capable of tracking systolic and diastolic blood pressure on a beat-to-beat basis (Shapiro, Greenstadt, Lane, & Rubinstein, 1981), this at a time when the only method of capturing both these levels from the same systole involved intra-arterial catherization. Dave and his colleagues went on to use this tracking system in a number of studies addressing fundamental questions related to orthostatic hypotension and postural change as a function of age, race, hypertensive status, family history of hypertension, caffeine, and psychological stress (Goldstein & Shapiro, 1990a, 1990b, 1995; Myers, Shapiro, McClure, & Daims, 1989). Dave's efforts in this area captured the attention of NASA as a potential means of training astronauts to control their blood pressure levels to facilitate their adjustments to microgravity and preventing postflight orthostatic intolerance (Cowings et al., 1994). Dave also pioneered the use of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring as a means of probing into the nature of dispositional styles, gender, race, and emotions as a function of context in everyday experiences (Goldstein, Shapiro, & Weiss, 2008; Shapiro, Goldstein, & Jamner, 1996; Shapiro, Jamner, & Goldstein, 1997). Together with Iris Goldstein and Larry Jamner, he characterized how the blood pressure and heart rate levels of paramedics discriminated among the components that make up ambulance runs and demonstrated that cardiovascular activation was greatest while at the hospital but only among paramedics with an approach-avoidant form of hostility (Jamner, Shapiro, Goldstein, & Hug, 1991; Shapiro, Jamner, & Goldstein, 1993). Dave had an almost unparalleled ability to conceptualize high impact questions and then, proceed to design research protocols that were both ahead of their time yet well-grounded. One such effort that comes to mind , in part because it was among one of his personal favorites, was his article describimg the significant effects that mood combinations had on concomitant ambulatory blood pressure levels (Shapiro, Jamner, Goldstein, & Delfino, 2001). Positive moods countered the effects of a negative mood, whereas two negative moods were associated with unique patterns of BP and HR. A notable contribution in the area of hypertension management was a randomized controlled trial that Dave conducted of step-down therapy combined with cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) stress management training (Oakley & Shapiro, 1989; Shapiro, Hui, Oakley, Pasic, & Jamner, 1997). Using a rigorous design, hypertensives’ medication levels were gradually reduced while undergoing CBT stress management training. A major finding of this project was the significant reduction in medication dosage required to control blood pressure levels, with a subset of participants stepped-down to medication-free status. Space limitations preclude mentioning all of Dave's research contributions related to blood pressure. The high esteem with which Dave's scientific contributions were recognized is attested to by the virtually continuous NIH funding he was awarded between the 1960’s to almost 2010. Recognition of the high caliber and impact of Dave's contributions to the psychophysiology of blood pressure was also evidenced by the Society tasking Dave to chair the SPR committee report on blood pressure publication guidelines in 1995 (Shapiro, Jamner, et al., 1996). Those who were fortunate to have had collaborated with Dave would likely mention his palpable passion for the scientific endeavor. His approach toward research was uncompromising in terms of the rigor and the meticulous execution that went into his studies. But, along with those traits, Dave was also a playful scientist who genuinely enjoyed observing data as it was being collected in the lab and discussing variations in responses with the collaborators or students who were present. Lab lunches were a frequent and much anticipated event during which lively discussions occurred among those present ranging from ongoing studies, to recent articles, as well as politics. To work in Dave's lab was to experience an almost steady stream of colleagues, former colleagues, former students, and visiting scientists who very often were invited to join the lab group for lunch at one of the food venues on the UCLA campus. Dave enjoyed a special relationship with an overwhelming number of his current and former collaborators, post-doctoral and doctoral students that spanned over 50 years. It was rare that a week would pass without Dave receiving a call or email from at least one of his former colleagues or trainees. Reciprocally, he was committed to promoting the careers of his academic family whenever the opportunity presented itself. In his later years, the title of Emeritus Professor in 1994 did not even scrape the surface of his scientific impact: he was a constant presence at international meetings and went to his lab daily until the very last years, with more than 70 research articles, and six book chapters after his so-called “retirement.” In the past 20 years, he dedicated his professional life to elucidate the factors that put people at greater risk for cardiovascular disease, examining the role of psychosocial (e.g., Davydov & Shapiro, 2015; Shapiro, 2002), personality (e.g., Goldstein & Shapiro, 2000), and genetic factors, such as family history of hypertension (Goldstein, Shapiro, & Guthrie, 2006). Reactivity has been a major area of cardiovascular psychophysiology, but Dave quickly recognized that its promise as a risk factor for essential hypertension had never been fulfilled. In collaboration with Cristina Ottaviani, he was able to overcome the identified major limitations of the so-called “reactivity hypothesis” and improve the lab-to-daily life 24-hr blood pressure prediction by (a) looking at hemodynamic profiling instead of blood pressure per se (Ottaviani, Shapiro, Goldstein, James, & Weiss, 2006); (b) going beyond reactivity to actual stressors (i.e., assessing the physiological anticipation of or recovery from a stressor; e.g., Ottaviani, Shapiro, & Fitzgerald, 2010); and (c) focusing on more than one biological system (e.g., including endocrine, immune, and inflammatory measures; Ottaviani, Shapiro, Goldstein, & Mills, 2007). While today the use of portable devices to record psychophysiological measures is quite common, he was again a pioneer in combining the use of ambulatory heart rate and blood pressure assessment with pencil and paper first (e.g., Shapiro et al., 1993, 2001), and thenelectronic diaries (e.g., Bailey, Shahabi, Tarvainen, Shapiro, & Ottaviani, 2019; Ottaviani et al., 2015). Within this context, he was the first to unveil how blood pressure and heart rate variability track complex variations in individuals’ daily moods and thoughts (Ottaviani et al., 2010; Shapiro et al., 2001). David Shapiro was indeed a visionary scientist and anticipated the role of effective baroreceptor functioning not only in cardiovascular conditions but also in psychiatric symptoms (e.g., Davydov, Shapiro, Cook, & Goldstein, 2007; Ottaviani, Shapiro, Davydov, Goldstein, & Mills, 2009), taking this perspective a step further by looking at resting heart rate variability as a predictor of treatment outcome in major depression (Jain et al., 2014). Dave had a skeptical attitude, but he never rejected by default any idea that came from his students and collaborators. The only exception that comes to mind is when a meditator wanted Dave to record his ECG while he was stopping his heart; in that particular case, Dave's answer was a big “No, thank you.” In any other case, he was questioning our ideas with a constructive attitude, providing support and guidance but at the same time encouraging us to follow our own paths. His motto for discouraged students was: “A lot of finding your place in the world is finding what you like and going after it. Things will just happen to fall into place.” He came to the directions he took generated by curiosity and continually asking questions, a habit, he said, coming from his father “who was a master kibitzer.” As much as the social creature he was, Dave was quite reserved when it came to revealing personal aspects of his life or feelings. For those closer to him, the sentimentality and affection he held for others were unmistaken. Dave's desk and office were decorated with photos of close relations including his godsons (the children of one of the contributors to this in memoriam; LDJ). To all, there was no mistaking the profound love that Dave possessed for his spouse Shirley. The two were virtually inseparable and she accompanied him on most of his professional travels. They shared a passion for yoga, fine dining, traveling, and looking out for each other. Dave Shapiro was a consummate scientist who contributed substantially to the field of psychophysiology from its earliest days and throughout his long exceptionally productive career. He will also be remembered for the great generosity of his spirit including the lifelong mentoring and support he provided an impressive cadre of colleagues, trainees, and students who themselves have gone on to lead productive academic careers. Psychophysiology may have lost one of its greats, but Dave's legacy will continue to inspire new generations of psychophysiologists for the foreseeable future. Dave will be greatly missed by his extended family of past mentees and colleagues, but he will live on through the achievements of the many he inspired." @default.
• W3082140509 created "2020-09-08" @default.
• W3082140509 creator A5001836606 @default.
• W3082140509 creator A5007176687 @default.
• W3082140509 creator A5035176303 @default.
• W3082140509 date "2020-09-02" @default.
• W3082140509 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W3082140509 title "In Memoriam: David Shapiro (1924–2020)" @default.
• W3082140509 cites W1525035260 @default.
• W3082140509 cites W1960007129 @default.
• W3082140509 cites W1964266240 @default.
• W3082140509 cites W1972541683 @default.
• W3082140509 cites W1985478090 @default.
• W3082140509 cites W1987605515 @default.
• W3082140509 cites W1987876291 @default.
• W3082140509 cites W1993785993 @default.
• W3082140509 cites W1994895047 @default.
• W3082140509 cites W1996120819 @default.
• W3082140509 cites W1997356967 @default.
• W3082140509 cites W1999450838 @default.
• W3082140509 cites W2000915762 @default.
• W3082140509 cites W2009171119 @default.
• W3082140509 cites W2014629228 @default.
• W3082140509 cites W2015809052 @default.
• W3082140509 cites W2016554900 @default.
• W3082140509 cites W2019599032 @default.
• W3082140509 cites W2020908876 @default.
• W3082140509 cites W2021007201 @default.
• W3082140509 cites W2022190813 @default.
• W3082140509 cites W2027724222 @default.
• W3082140509 cites W2031510338 @default.
• W3082140509 cites W2040451465 @default.
• W3082140509 cites W2043072249 @default.
• W3082140509 cites W2049196361 @default.
• W3082140509 cites W2052593432 @default.
• W3082140509 cites W2074704886 @default.
• W3082140509 cites W2075543464 @default.
• W3082140509 cites W2076978839 @default.
• W3082140509 cites W2079383409 @default.
• W3082140509 cites W2079805403 @default.
• W3082140509 cites W2087840928 @default.
• W3082140509 cites W2104163447 @default.
• W3082140509 cites W2105517954 @default.
• W3082140509 cites W2114920302 @default.
• W3082140509 cites W2121107513 @default.
• W3082140509 cites W2122832169 @default.
• W3082140509 cites W2124384653 @default.
• W3082140509 cites W2124945571 @default.
• W3082140509 cites W2139789695 @default.
• W3082140509 cites W2164953315 @default.
• W3082140509 cites W2169367696 @default.
• W3082140509 cites W2318282578 @default.
• W3082140509 cites W2319962450 @default.
• W3082140509 cites W2320468212 @default.
• W3082140509 cites W2325052004 @default.
• W3082140509 cites W2335353054 @default.
• W3082140509 cites W2409685369 @default.
• W3082140509 cites W2914087876 @default.
• W3082140509 cites W4236910955 @default.
• W3082140509 cites W4252279178 @default.
• W3082140509 doi "https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.13677" @default.
• W3082140509 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32877011" @default.
• W3082140509 hasPublicationYear "2020" @default.
• W3082140509 type Work @default.
• W3082140509 sameAs 3082140509 @default.
• W3082140509 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W3082140509 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W3082140509 hasAuthorship W3082140509A5001836606 @default.
• W3082140509 hasAuthorship W3082140509A5007176687 @default.
• W3082140509 hasAuthorship W3082140509A5035176303 @default.
• W3082140509 hasBestOaLocation W30821405091 @default.
• W3082140509 hasConcept C11171543 @default.
• W3082140509 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W3082140509 hasConceptScore W3082140509C11171543 @default.
• W3082140509 hasConceptScore W3082140509C15744967 @default.
• W3082140509 hasIssue "11" @default.
• W3082140509 hasLocation W30821405091 @default.
• W3082140509 hasOpenAccess W3082140509 @default.
• W3082140509 hasPrimaryLocation W30821405091 @default.
• W3082140509 hasRelatedWork W1884192967 @default.
• W3082140509 hasRelatedWork W1970739065 @default.
• W3082140509 hasRelatedWork W2036405309 @default.
• W3082140509 hasRelatedWork W2091657769 @default.
• W3082140509 hasRelatedWork W2315978648 @default.
• W3082140509 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W3082140509 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W3082140509 hasRelatedWork W2931662336 @default.
• W3082140509 hasRelatedWork W3140514088 @default.
• W3082140509 hasRelatedWork W4254775419 @default.
• W3082140509 hasVolume "57" @default.
• W3082140509 isParatext "false" @default.
• W3082140509 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W3082140509 magId "3082140509" @default.
• W3082140509 workType "article" @default.