Re: Subject: anti-therapy (was Re: tips digest: June 02, 2005

[Scott Lilienfeld]

Mike: To what extent have Pennebaker's findings been independently replicated by researchers outside of his laboratory?  ....Scott Mike Palij wrote: Editorial Note: One of the benefits of receiving TiPS in digest form (if one need such convincing) is that on occasion one can respond to two messages at the same time, an example of which is given below: ---- Original Message ----- > Subject: anti-therapy From: "Beth Benoit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 09:32:08 -0400 Christina Hoff Summers is at it again: This time putting therapy in her = sights. Here's the review of her new book, One Nation Under Therapy: = How the Helping Culture is Eroding Self-Reliance, from the New York = Times. I thank Beth for providing the book review article from the NY Times but when I see a book like this reviewed in the popular press, that is, one that presents itself as a "possibly" scientific critique (in contrast to a political/polemic or somewhat loosely based "intellectual analysis" based on a partial review of research chosen with a partisan agenda in mind) I am reminded of the situation associated the "Bell Curve". In that situation some "possibly" scientific assertions were made but instead of first presenting a review paper to Psychological Bulletin for peer review, Herrnstein and Murray published their findings and interpretations in book form, free from the hassles and criticisms associated with responding to reviewer's "picky" points about problems in their methodology, analysis, interpretation, and conclusions. As a result psychologists and other social scientists then had to spend the next several years debunking the book because the popular media gave the book and its authors their 15 minutes of fame. I have feeling something similar may happen with the Hoffman & Satel book if it remains in the public eye. Since I haven't seen Hoffman & Satel's book but I have to wonder to what extent does the book cover the empirical research literature and whether it does so in a comprehensive and fair manner or does it rely upon "analyses" such as the following which Satel had published in the online version of National Review: http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/satel200501140730.asp I wonder, do Hoffman & Satel provide empirical evidence against the findings of James Pennebacker which shows the therapeutic benefits of discussing or disclosing of emotional experiences (it seems to me that Hoffman & Satel would discourage such activities, possibly labelling it as "whining"). For those who are unfamiliar with Pennebacker's work, I'd suggest the following: Pennebaker, James W. Writing about emotional experiences as a therapeutic process. Salovey, Peter (Ed); Rothman, Alexander J (Ed). (2003). Social psychology of health. Key readings in social psychology. (pp. 362-368). New York, NY, US: Psychology Press. [PsycInfo provides the following abstract: (from the chapter) For the past decade, an increasing number of studies have demonstrated that when individuals write about emotional experiences, significant physical and mental health improvements follow. The basic paradigm and findings are summarized along with some boundary conditions. Although a reduction in inhibition may contribute to the disclosure phenomenon, changes in basic cognitive and linguistic processes during writing predict better health. Implications for theory and treatment are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2004 APA, all rights reserved)] Pennebaker, James W; Zech, Emmanuelle; Rime, Bernard. Disclosing and sharing emotion: Psychological, social, and health consequences. Stroebe, Margaret S (Ed); Hansson, Robert O (Ed); et al. (2001). Handbook of bereavement research: Consequences, coping, and care. (pp. 517-543). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association. Pennebaker, James W. The effects of traumatic disclosure on physical and mental health: The values of writing and talking about upsetting events. Violanti, John M (Ed); Paton, Douglas (Ed); et al. (2000). Posttraumatic stress intervention: Challenges, issues, and perspectives. (pp. 97-114). Springfield, IL, US: Charles C. Thomas Publisher, Ltd. [From the PsycInfo abstract] from the chapter) Sudden life transitions can profoundly influence people's social, family, physical, and psychological lives. One traditional goal within psychology has been to understand and develop ways by which to reduce the adverse impact of individual and collective traumas. This chapter discusses 4 major issues surrounding coping with emotional upheavals. The first concerns the natural sequence of coping that occurs in most disasters. The second focuses on the advantages of talking about upsetting experiences and, conversely, the dangers of not talking about emotional upheavals. The 3rd section deals with evidence that writing about upsetting experiences is beneficial to health and well-being. The final part of the chapter discusses these findings within the context of Critical Incident Stress Management debriefing strategies. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2004 APA, all rights reserved)] One can use the above summary chapters to track down the specific research studies that supports the point that disclosure can be therapeutic, and I understand that one doesn't necessarily need a therapist to gain such benefits but I think one can see how a therapist might facilitate the process, especially if one has been taught to "keep it to yourself". Or has psychology decided that talking about one's problems and trauma is now just whining? Mike Palij New York University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Beth Benoit Granite State College Subject: Re: anti-therapy From: Scott Lilienfeld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2005 09:44:53 -0400 X-Message-Number: 3 In the interests of full disclosure, I should reveal that I'm personal=20 friends with Sally Satel. You have my condolences. :-) <- Note: smiley, I'm kidding! Actually, I'm just half kidding. I know that there is a sizeable portion of the public health research community who think that she's just a zealous nut. That issue aside, I'd strongly recommend this=20 highy provocative book, the NY Times review below (which I think misses=20 the point in several respects) notwithstanding. Whether one agrees with=20 most of their central arguments, their points are worth discussing and=20 debating. ....Scott I'm not sure I agree with Scott's assertions that "their points are worth discussing and debating" but I do think that such a book provides a wonderful opportunity for students to apply their critical thinking skills. Critically analyzing the book could make for a semester long seminar where the following questions can be asked: (1) What empirical research is cited to support the author's assertions? Are research studies that do NOT support the author's assertions are cited? Where are the studies published (e.g., peer-reviewed journals, popular media, etc.). (2) Do the authors engage in logical fallacies in presenting their argument? One good place to review such fallacies is the following website though people may have their own favorite(s): http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ (3) What are alternative explanations that may have equal or even greater validity than the explanation offered by Hoffman and Satal. And so on. I think the main goal of such a course would be assist students in recognizing and distinguishing between an assertion based on personal opinion (prejudice?) but presented as a "fact" and actual facts. P.S. The book is less of a critique about psychotherapy per se (which=20 Sommer and Satel agree can be helpful in many cases), but what they term = "therapism," viz., the increasingly widespread notion in popular culture = I would be delighted to look at the psychometric articles that they or anyone else have written in which they demonstrate the validity and reliability for the measurement of the concept (latent variable) "therapism". I did a PsycInfo search for the term and found only one entry that even mentions "therapism": Weldon, Fay. Mind at the other end of its tether. Feltham, Colin (Ed). (1999). Controversies in psychotherapy and counselling. (pp. 287-293). London, England: Sage Publications Ltd. [Note: the following is from the PsychInfo abstract: (from the chapter) The author argues that once there was religion, then there was science, then there was Marxism; and now we have therapy, which, in its wider political and social context outside the consulting room, is referred to as *Therapism*. It is estimated that it will be perhaps another 50 yrs before our brave new caring society collapses under the weight of its own by-product, an excess of empathy--as shatteringly and suddenly as did the Berlin Wall, leaving the human race to find itself some new wheeze in its quest for purpose. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2004 APA, all rights reserved)] I assume that you have either read Hoffman & Satel's book or are familiar with their (or at least Satel's) use of the term "therapism"? Is their/her use use of it is consistent with Weldon's use above? that most people are fragile and vulnerable to breakdown and therefore=20 require "professional help" whenever distressed. Presumably there is some researher(s) who has advocated this position (and I don't consider either Oprah or Dr. Phil to be researchers) and I wonder if you can identify who he/she/they are? Also, I could be wrong on this point, but haven't epidemiological studies of mental illness in the U.S. and elsewhere have shown that mental illness is actually underreported and undertreated? Please, correct me if I am wrong but, if I am correct, how does Hoffman & Satel's position square with this? Mike Palij New York University [EMAIL PROTECTED] --=20 Scott O. Lilienfeld, Ph.D. Associate Professor=20 Department of Psychology, Room 206=20 Emory University 532 N. Kilgo Circle=20 Atlanta, Georgia 30322 (404) 727-1125 (phone) (404) 727-0372 (FAX) Home Page: http://www.emory.edu/PSYCH/Faculty/lilienfeld.html The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice: www.srmhp.org The Master in the Art of Living makes little distinction between his work= and his play, his labor and his leisure, his mind and his body, his educ= ation and his recreation, his love and his intellectual passions. He har= dly knows which is which. He simply pursues his vision of excellence in = whatever he does, leaving others to decide whether he is working or playi= ng. To him =96 he is always doing both. - Zen Buddhist text=20 (slightly modified)=20 --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Scott O. Lilienfeld, Ph.D. Associate Professor Department of Psychology, Room 206 Emory University 532 N. Kilgo Circle Atlanta, Georgia 30322 (404) 727-1125 (phone) (404) 727-0372 (FAX) Home Page: http://www.emory.edu/PSYCH/Faculty/lilienfeld.html The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice: www.srmhp.org The Master in the Art of Living makes little distinction between his work and his play, his labor and his leisure, his mind and his body, his education and his recreation, his love and his intellectual passions. He hardly knows which is which. He simply pursues his vision of excellence in whatever he does, leaving others to decide whether he is working or playing. To him – he is always doing both. - Zen Buddhist text (slightly modified) --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]