I am teaching the unit on psychotherapy next week and wanted to alert students to questionnable approaches to therapy that lack empirical support that they are particularly more effective than other types of approaches. It is only a 1 ppt slide part of the lecture but I think that it's important as many intro psych students will never take another psych class in their lives but have a 50% likelihood of needing therapy sometime in their lives; or at least a close loved one might.
I have a short list but wanted to expand it. My point for students will be that more harm than good can come of some approaches when there is no evidence that what they are doing is doing anything at all, other than that it is costing them lots of money, and that they could be doing something that at least some some empirical support behind it. Any evidence to accompany the forms of bogus therapies will also help me. They are reading the skeptical inquirer article on why bogus therapies seem to work (which is why I LOVE using a briefer text and giving myself the freedom to assign outside readings :) They also have an article by Carol Tavris on the scientist/practitioner disagreements. My short list so far includes crystals therapies, regression therapies and EMDR. Annette Annette Kujawski Taylor, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology University of San Diego 5998 Alcala Park San Diego, CA 92110 619-260-4006 [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
