English
Français
Deutsch
Español
;
The Effects of Child Sexual Abuse: Truth Versus Political Correctness;
IPT Journal, 2006;
16,
ABSTRACT: Research over many years establishes the negative effects of child sexual abuse are not as pervasive, severe, and long-lasting as generally assumed. But rather than being seen by victims' advocates as good news, such research results are met with resistance, anger, and personal attacks. This controversy reached its height in 1999 when the media, conservative organizations, and the United States Congress condemned a 1998 meta-analysis in the Psychological Bulletin by Rind, Tromovitch, and Bauserman. The American Psychological Association's response to the furor was to distance itself from the article and its authors. This episode demonstrates the difficulty of doing and reporting research where conclusions contradict strongly held beliefs.
ABSTRACT: Research over many years establishes the negative effects of child sexual abuse are not as pervasive, severe, and long-lasting as generally assumed. But rather than being seen by victims' advocates as good news, such research results are met with resistance, anger, and personal attacks. This controversy reached its height in 1999 when the media, conservative organizations, and the United States Congress condemned a 1998 meta-analysis in the Psychological Bulletin by Rind, Tromovitch, and Bauserman. The American Psychological Association's response to the furor was to distance itself from the article and its authors. This episode demonstrates the difficulty of doing and reporting research where conclusions contradict strongly held beliefs.
;
Is the Pseudoscience Concept Useful for Clinical Psychology?;
The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice;
vol. 2, no. 2 (Fall/Winter 2003), ,
Jan 01 2003
Abstract:Talented entrepreneurs have been developing and marketing novel therapeutic methods, some touted as veritable miracle cures for diverse complaints.
This phenomenon has caught the attention of scientist-practitioners in psychology, many of whom criticize these approaches as “pseudo-scientific.” The purpose of this essay is to sketch a simpler, alternative approach to debunking dubious methods in clinical psychology. When therapeutic entrepreneurs make claims on behalf of their interventions, we should not waste our time trying to determine whether their interventions qualify as pseudo-scientific. Rather, we should ask them: How do you know that your intervention works? What is your evidence?
Abstract:Talented entrepreneurs have been developing and marketing novel therapeutic methods, some touted as veritable miracle cures for diverse complaints.
This phenomenon has caught the attention of scientist-practitioners in psychology, many of whom criticize these approaches as “pseudo-scientific.” The purpose of this essay is to sketch a simpler, alternative approach to debunking dubious methods in clinical psychology. When therapeutic entrepreneurs make claims on behalf of their interventions, we should not waste our time trying to determine whether their interventions qualify as pseudo-scientific. Rather, we should ask them: How do you know that your intervention works? What is your evidence?