Controversial Issues Exam 1 Study Guide
Is the Conclusion that "Psychotherpy Helps" Valid? Seligman vs. Jacobsen & Christenson
Consumer Reports - is a monthly publication (now on line as well of course) that evaluates products and services, everything from cars to mp3 players. They accept no contributions or perks so their evaluations are trusted to be COMPLETELY UNBIASED AND TRUTHFUL. Their survey in treatment effectiveness was a first and still important.
Efficacy study - Considered the "gold standard" in evaluating treatment outcome. A treatment group is compared to a non-treatment (control) group in a carefully designed and controlled study. Most all treatment outcome studies are efficacy studies.
Efficiency study - In contrast, an effectiveness study looks at treatment outcome as it occurs with typical (not selected) people under "real world" conditions. The CR study is an efficiency study.
Main Results:
1. Seligman claims that about 90% of those feeling very poor at the outset of therapy felt very good, good, or at least "so so" after therapy.
2. Seligman reported that long term therapy was more beneficial than brief therapy.
3. Medication added to therapy did NOT improve outcomes.
4. All types of therapy did about equally well.
Dodo Bird Hypothesis - The idea that all types of psychotherapy work about equally well.
Problems with the CR survey and conclusions according to Jacobson and Cristensen:
1. The data was "retrospective" (looking back) and can be distorted and inaccurate. "Prospective" (looking ahead) studies such as the typical treatment outcome study don't have that problem.
2. Responders may have been different from non responders. The people who responded to the survey may have differed from those who didn't respond in some way that "confounded" the findings, rendering them unreliable.
3. The "apparent" superiority of longer term therapy may be due to spontaneous remission (regression to the mean). Symptoms are likely to lessen with passing time.
4. Sample representativeness - Those who subscribe to CR are likely of higher SES and perhaps more educated and particular in their choices than the average American.
5. A large percentage were likely "sub-clinical" and, therefore, more likely to spontaneously remit.
7. One measure or three - Seligman claims three outcome measures: therapist satisfaction, improvement in presenting problem, and overall improvement. Jacobson and Cristensen say this is all just one construct.
6. Demand characteristics (Dr, Richman)- Are a problem with any treatment outcome study. Responders may have answered as they thought they were expected to (i.e., of course the treatment helped).
The Hans Eysenck dispute - Back in 1952 Eysenck conducted a study that Jacobson and Cristensen maintain was superior to the CR study. He concluded that therapy did not help. His results have since been rejected by the clinical community. So, J and C see the CR study as going back to a methodology that was rejected long ago.
Meta Analysis - Is the direction that modern treatment outcome research has taken. Results of many studies are combined into a single analysis to better assess treatment effectiveness. The technique was pioneered by Smith and Glass in the 1970s and their findings SUPPORT the Dodo Bird Hypothesis.
Was Stanley Milgram's Study of Obedience Unethical? Baumrind vs. Milgram
The study - Subjects ("teachers")though they were giving increasingly strong shocks to a "learner" in another room each time the learner made a mistake in a memory task. In reality, no shocks were ever given. The "teachers" did not know THEY were the subjects of the experiment.
Baumrind’s position - “it has become more commonplace in sociopsychological research to manipulate, embarrass, and discomfort subjects”
Zimbardo Prison Study - This study conducted at Stanford probably was actually more unethical than Milgram's but seems to have attracted less attention from critics.
External validity - The ability of a study's findings to be applied to real world settings and situations. Baumrind says the Milgram study lacks external validity.
Ecological validity - Very similar to external validity (nearly the same), maybe deals more with applicability to various populations.
Internal validity - Ability to conclude that the variable observed (dependent) was influenced by the variable manipulated (independent). In "controlled" experiments like Milgram's, there is a trade off between internal and external validity.
Why did Milgram undertake the study? - The repeated claim at the Nuremburg (WW2) that I was "just following orders" intrigued him.
No harm done accd. to Milgram - About 84 percent of Stanley Milgram’s subjects said they were either glad or very glad to have participated in the research?
Impact on participants - After a one year follow up, Milgram determined that, although stressed during the experiment, none of the participants suffered any long term consequences.
Milgram: yes it is valid - Milgram claims the study DID possess external / ecological validity.
Variations made a difference - Accd. to Milgram, Baumrind focused on the version of the study in which 65 percent of subjects obeyed to the end (maximum voltage). However, when factors were varied (e.g., experimenter further away from subject) obedience rates were lower.
Does Spanking Children Lead Them to Become More Violent? Strauss vs. Rosemond
Spanking isn't better- Accd. to Strauss, studies with humans and animals show that punishment is NOT more effective than reinforcement and may, if fact, be inferior with regard to changing behavior.
B. F. Skinner on punishment - (not in book) Reinforcement is superior to punishment when possible. Additionally, punishment may create "emotional conflict" within the child.
Spanking as a last resort - Though Strauss believes there is NEVER a need for spanking, the case of a two or three year old repeatedly running out into the street must make us wonder.
Accd. to Straus side effects of spanking include – delinquency and later criminal activity, wife beating, depression, a preference for masochistic sex, and lower earnings.
Non spanking parents – Accd. to Strauss, pay more attention to their children's behavior and do more explaining and reasoning.
Laws against spanking - are advocated by Struass and he point to Sweeden, a country that has such a law, as an example.
Oprah Winfrey - is one public figure who has come out against spanking on her TV show.
Rosemond on Sweeden - Accd. to Rosemond, Sweeden's socialist politics have created a number of problems which stress families, have led to child abuse, and have prompted the anti-spanking law. He says the anti-spanking law has NOT reduced spanking at all.
Spanking vs. Beating - Accd. to Rosemond, Strauss fails to distinguish between these two and that weakens his argument.
Parenting styles - Psychologists have long recognized three parenting types: 1. Authoritarian (dominate and use force), 2. Permissive (are too easy and impose no rules at all), and 3. Authoratative (are democratic and have clear reasonable rules).
Authoritarian parents - are most likely to use corporal (physical) punishment.
Spanking as a "safety valve" - Rosemond points out that with its anti-spanking laws, Sweeden's rate of child beating is two to four times greater than in the U.S. Spanking may serve as a safety valve. If parents are forbidden from spanking, they may delay taking action until they abuse their child out of anger and rage.
Rosemond’s real concern – is that government control will become so excessive that parents will not be able to be effective at all. He sees such "totalitarianism" as leading the destruction of the family as we know it.
Does Viewing Television Increase a Child's Aggression? Centerwall vs. Siano
How much is too much? - At the time of this writing, the average American pre-schooler
The "Notel" study - Tannis Williams et al. observed aggression rates in fourth and fifth graders in "Notel" (a Canadian village) and two other towns which did not have TV access. Two years after the introduction of television to Notel, aggression rates increased 160 percent there while it remained the same in the "control" communities. This is important because it is a "true experiment" and allows cause and effect to be inferred.
The Gary Granzberg study - He conducted a similar study within two Indian communities in northern Manitoba Canada. Aggression rates were again observed. When television was introduced to the first community aggression rates increase over the control community. And, when television was introduced to the control community, aggresssion rates increased there as well.
Eron and Huesman - Observed semi-rural U.S. children. They concluded that amount of television watched at age 8 predicted criminality at ate thirty. However, as this was NOT a true experiement, causality cannot inferred (Correlation does not equal Causation).
South African Experience - White South Africans did NOT have TV until 1975. The U.S. homicide rate increased 93 percent from 1945 to 1974. In South Africa, where TV was banned, homicide dropped by seven percent during the same period.
American TV Responds:
CBS commissioned a study in which boys who watched above average amounts of TV violence had higher rates of violent behavior than those who watched less violent TV.
ABC's study by Heller and Polsky found that in two groups of young felons, 22 and 34 percent reported having imitated the crimes they saw on TV. This was a "retrospective" study and carries problems of inaccurate recall and no way of verifying the reported information.
NBC employed J. R. Milavsky to study a follow group of school children for up to three years. He reported that television violence had no effect on children's behavior. However, others who examined his data claim a 5 percent increase in aggressive behavior caused by TV.
Centerwall's Suggestsions: Meeting the Challenge
1. Based on American Academy of Pediatrics recommendations, TV viewing for children should be limited to one or two hours per day.
2. Parents should guide what their children watch.
3. Laws should be passed requiring "channel lock" circuitry on new television sets.
4. Programs should be accompanied by a "violence rating."
Albert Bandura - Is a famous psychologist who conducted the famouse "Bobo Doll" studies which showed that children mimicked the aggressive behavior they observed in adult models. He is a long time advocate of controlling childrens' exposure to violence in the media.
Free Speech - Brian Siano suggests that because the "elite" in our society don't consider TV "art," it does not deserve the same free speech rights that other media receive.
Siano on Eron and Huesman - He says the study was "confounded" by other factors than TV, such as parent nurturance and parent identification. Determining aggression level by "peer nomination" was also a problem. Siano says the TV-aggression effect is "bi-directional" in nature (aggressive children may prefer more violent TV). Direction of cause can't be inferred.
George Gerbner's work - He tried to calcuate "risk ratios" for television, a quantitative measure of just how violent a given program is. Siano (and your instructor) this this would be helpful information in understanding these issues. However, Gerbner's calculations seem subjective and difficult to calculate. So, a good idea but just not really practical.
the “Beavis and Butthead incident” - Siano cites an example of how anecdotal evidence can be exaggerated or just plain incorrect. It was reported that after a four year old set the family trailer on fire, the mother blamed it on his watching Beavis and Butthead. It later came out that the family didn't have cable TV and that the child had a history of "fire-starting."
Mystery Science Theatre 3000 - Is cited by Siano as an example of the kind of good fun and "irreverence" that TV needs. I think he just wanted to mention the show. I liked watching it too.
Siano's real concern - is that government will over-regulate TV just as he sees it over-regulating many facets of life.
Should Psychology Adopt a Theory of Multiple Intelligences? Gardner vs. Gottfredson
Hernstein and Murray and the "Bell Curve" - A controversial 1994 book suggesting that intelligence is largely heritable and may be a better predictor of success than education or environment. The book also talks about "group differences" in intelligence.
Arthur Jensen - Two to three decades earlier, put forth ideas similar to Hernstein and Murray.
The "psychologist's orthodoxy" - Applied to intelligence suggests there is a single general intelligence called "g."
Many factorial theories currently co-exist with “g” concept - though Gardner seems to see it as a competition.
Gardner contends 8 distinct intelligences: linguistic, logical/mathematical, musical, spatial, body kinesthetic, interpersonal and intrapersonal (i.e., emotional intelligence), and naturalistic. He is currently considering a 9th intelligence, “spiritual.”
Dr. Richman’s views on naturalistic and spiritual intelligence – I doubt the naturalistic IQ concept. However, I think the spiritual IQ concept is intriguing.
Gardner claims his theory is “empirically grounded” (based on evidence) – He cites that patients with temporal lobe damage lost the ability to identify living things (naturalistic IQ) but could still identify inanimate (non-living) objects.
Importance of the “Mozart Effect” - The Mozart Effect, the idea that listening to classical music enhances cognitive skills was all the rage just a few years ago. Gardner cites it as support for musical IQ. However, It was an example of a psychology “fad” (they come and go) and does not seem to have much support.
Acceptance by educators? – Gardner suggests the multiple IQ model is a boon for students as learning can be tailored to each students unique way or learning. Practical? Will the real world give students that same latitude?
Gardner’s 3 wishes:
1. A broader understanding and conceptualization of intelligence
2. That we move away from short answer and multiple choice tests to real world demonstration of ability, Can that be done?
3. To see the MI concept be used to improve education (pedagogy).
Emotional Intelligence – A book written by Daniel Goleman which popularized the “emotional intelligence” concept with is currently getting a lot of attention.
Eugenics – the science of creating better people through selective breeding. Gardner cautions that the current view of IQ is not too far from this concept but I don’t see that.
Gardner’s ideas – are nice but kind of “lofty” (out of reach).
Gottfredson on the debate in general – 1. the public has more concern than understanding on the topic and 2. no issue in psychology has been so hotly debated