Providentia

How Useful is Cognitive Rehabilitation in Schizophrenia?

Cognitive rehabilitation is becoming an increasingly popular intervention in treatment programs for people with schizophrenia. Despite this increased acceptance, however, the evidence base on its effectiveness is not impressive. Moreover, given the evidence of cognitive recovery in treated patients who do not receive cognitive rehabilitation-from newer medications and from other evidence-based psychosocial interventions-it is not clear whether cognitive rehabilitation is worth its expense in time and resources.  The authors of a recent review article published in Schizophrenia Bulletin believe that the slow progress in the field of cognitive rehabilitation of schizophrenia is related to failure to address several critical issues: (1) the importance of manipulating stimulus and context structure in rehabilitative interventions; (2) the need to base a cognitive rehabilitation of schizophrenia on cognitive neuroscience as opposed to neuropsychology; (3) the importance of systematically addressing motivation, self-esteem, and affective factors when designing cognition-enhancing interventions; (4) the need to move beyond one-size-fits-all interventions and develop individualized treatments; and (5) the need to address abnormalities in the experience of the self when designing interventions to optimize cognitive and behavioral performance. Suggestions for addressing these issues are discussed.

For the abstract.

MP Calls for Parliamentary Inquiry to Investigate "Expert" Psychiatrist

A leading U.K. psychiatrist whose expert testimony has led to hundreds of court-ordered family breakups is now facing a formal probe to determine his fitness to practice medicine.   Dr. George Hibbert, a 59-year old forensic psychiatrist has been involved in hundreds of family services cases since leaving the National Health Service to establish his own assessment centre, Assessment in Care.  Now facing allegations of deliberately altering his professional reports to fit the view of socal services agencies and diagnosing hundreds of parents with "personality disorders",  his offer to surrender his licence to practice medicine has been rejected by the General Medical Council.  

By 2007, Dr. Hibbert was making an estimated 460,000 British pounds a year through his assessment centre and is currently believed to have a net worth of 2.7 million pounds.   He would often charge as much as 6000 pounds a week for each of the families in his care.   Concerns over Dr. Hibbert's assessment centre were first raised in 2007 following a complaint from a woman identified only as "Miss A".   Diagnosed as suffering from a bipolar disorder, she lost custody of her son and has had only intermittent contact with him since that time.   Describing Dr. Hibbert as "corrupt and evil", she adds that "Nothing will ever make up for what he has done to me and my child, I want to make sure this man is exposed and that he can never do this to anybody else".    In reviewing the case, a consulting psychiatrist accused Dr.  Hibbert of deliberately exagggerating Miss  A's behaviour and emotional state in his report since social service agencies wanted her baby to be adopted.   A letter that the complainant received from the General Medical Council states that Dr. Hibbert "has no intention of returning to clinical practice in the future"  and is pushing for a full inquiry despite his attempt to voluntarily remove himself from the register. 

After raising his concerns about Dr. Hibbert in Parliament, Liberal Democrat M.P. John Hemming has called for a full parliamentary inquiry over why government agencies paid hundred of thousands of pounds for reports that are now being investigated.    He added that "[Dr.  Hibbert] is someone about whom a number of people have complained. I am told that at least one person has refused to work for him because of what she saw as his unethical provision of reports to suit the demands of local authorities".   He also accuses Dr. Hibbert of being "the hired gun of the local authority" and that family courts often rely on such reports leading to what he described as "thousands of miscarriages of justice in care proceedings".   Mr. Hemming stated that he was alerted to a case by a whistle-blower and that he spoke to several other families who described how Dr. Hibbert's testimony led to family break-ups.

According to a news story from the Daily Mail, Dr. Hibbert has refused all media interviews and his assessment centre now appears to be closed.   Although a spokesman for Dr. Hibbert has refused to comment on the case due to confidentiality issues, attorneys for "Miss A" will be launching proceedings on her behalf against the doctor and the local authority.    Paul Grant of Bernard Chill and Axtel Solicitors who is representing her added that "We believe this distressing case may be the tip of a very big iceberg".

For more information.

Returning From Heaven (Part 1)

Jemima Wilkinson never set out to be an evangelist.  Not to mention launching a crusade that would upset the patriarchs who dominated 19th century American society.  All that it took was for her to die and visit Heaven.

Born in 1752 to a Rhode Island Quaker farm family, her early childhood seemed uneventful enough.   The Wilkinsons were part of the Cumberland colony that Roger Williams established for Quakers and other religious dissidents to escape the religious intolerance that had driven them out of England.     By all accounts, Jemima was an attractive young woman who enjoyed fine clothes as well being an accomplished horse rider.  Although she had little formal education (which was common for the women of her time), she read the Bible and was educated in Quaker history.

By the time she turned eighteen, a new religious sect known as the "New Light Baptists" began to flourish throughout New England.  Founded by evangelical preacher, George Whitefield,  the sect laid the foundation for what would be termed "The First Great Awakening"  which advocated the role of the Bible and the Holy Spirit in fostering a feeling of spiritual guilt and personal redemption.    Along with having a profound influence on American society (Benjamin Franklin was one of Whitefield's most enthusiastic supporters),  the movement also had a strong personal influence on Jemima Wilkinson.

In August of 1776, Jemima joined a New Light Baptist group and dedicated herself to intensive Bible study.  Her newfound devotion to religion came at a heavy price though.  Not only was she expelled from the Quakers but her relationship with her family and friends was strained as well.    Whether due to the emotional trauma of losing her standing among the Quakers or one of the typhus epidemics that occurred intermittently during that period, Jemima Wilkinson became seriously ill in October 1776. 

The exact nature of the illness was never identified and how close to death she actually came seems to depend on which version of events you believe.  Whether her illiness was emotional or physical, Jemima would later claim that she lay in a "deathlike trance" for days (a brother would later state that it had been only hours and that she had never even been in a trance).    After her recovery, Jemima stated that she had actually died and that her soul had gone to Heaven where she visited with angels.   While in Heaven, the Spirit of God possessed her body and enabled her return to life.   The spirit, which she referred to as the "Publick Universal Friend", had chosen her to preach to a sin-filled world and to bring God's message to Earth.   In the same way that Jesus Christ was the First Messenger of God, Jemima Wilkinson would be the Second Messenger of God.   She also maintained that her frail female body had been replaced by a genderless spirit and that she had transcended her physical sex as a result. Whatever reservations her family members had over this revelation, they were obviously resolved fairly quickly since many of them became her first converts.

On October 13, 1776, Jemima Wilkinson preached her first sermon on the need for repentance and the strict moral code that she laid out for her followers.  There was nothing new about her theology which was basically a mixture of Calvinist, Methodist, and Baptist doctrine.  She also renounced her old name since the "Publick Universal Friend" was doing the real preaching and her body was just a vessel.   Along with preaching sermons, she also engaged in faith healing and made numerous prophecies based on dreams and "visions".   Showing an extremely canny  knack for showmanship,  she attended her meetings wearing a long, flowing black robe with a white cravat around her neck and had no problem impressing whoever saw her.   Riding a white horse ahead of her followers (who always came behind her marching two-by-two) , she conducted numerous public gatherings  throughout New England, very much in the Quaker style.  Renouncng public baptisms, rituals, and religious sacraments, Jemima's meeting involved her and her followers waiting for the "Spirit of God" to inspire everyone present.  While some followers made public statements of their faith,  the rest simply sat as Jemima delivered her usual hour-long sermon. 

Jemima Wilkinson's crusade took her across Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts.  While her message of total abstinence from sex deterred some would-be believers, her firm opposition to war and slavery attracted others (many of her followers were former slaves).  As one of the first female evangelists and a strong supporter of womens' rights, she was far ahead of her time in many ways.    After converting a prominent Rhode Island judge, William Potter, in 1778,  she persuaded him to free many of his slaves.  He also gave up a promising political career to join her movement.  In return, Judge Potter built a large addition to his already spacious mansion for Jemima and her followers to live in.   Since she had no property herself, Jemima  was completely dependent on gifts from followers and admirers. 

Sensing that the Millenium was drawing closer, Jemima predicted to her followers that Christ's Second Coming would occur in 1780.   When New England's Dark Day occurred on May 19, 1780, Jemima Wilkinson took it as a sign that Christ's return was imminent.   Since she had apparently predicted the event, Jemima attracted many new followers who hoped for salvation.   By September 16 of that same year, she and her supporters composed a "Declaration of Faith" and launched what would become known as the "Society of Universal Friends".   While Quakers initially welcomed her when she visited Philadephia, this quickly changed when some of her followers declared her to be "Christ in Female Form" as well as "The Messiah Returned" (Jemima never claimed this herself).    This was enough to have rocks get thrown at her at some meetings and she quickly realized that she had worn out her welcome. 

Rather than converting existing communities, Jemima Wilkinson decided to build a "New Jerusalem" in the wilderness where her followers could live in peace and made plans to form a new, utopian community.  All that they would need was the right location.

Continue to Part 2

 

 

 

 

 

Does Physical Movement Training Help Dementia Patients?

Physical exercise has positive effects on cognitive functioning in both healthy older adults and ambulatory older adults with dementia. A recent study published in GeroPsych: The Journal of Gerontopsychology and Geriatric Psychiatry investigated whether a 10-week multimodal movement intervention conducted in the seated position can slow cognitive deterioration in demented and physically very frail nursing-home residents.  Analysis revealed that training participants showed no further overall cognitive deterioration throughout the study and a significant improvement in the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-cognitive subscale (ADAS-Cog) orientation/praxis subscore (p = .04). In contrast, the control group demonstrated a significant decline in the ADAS-Cog sum score (p = .02). These results might be of relevance for geriatric practice since they indicate that a short-term physical intervention—even in the seated position—can decelerate cognitive decline and dementia despite physical frailty.

For the abstract.

Couple Sentenced to Life Imprisonent in U.K. Witchcraft Murder

In a decision recently handed down in an Old Bailey court, Judge David Paget sentenced 29-year old Magalie Bamu and her 28-year old boyfriend Eric Bikubi to life imprisonent for the gruesome murder of Magalie's 15-year old brother Kristy in December 2010.   The judge sentenced Magalie Bamu to a minimum of 25 years in prison while Bikubi would need to serve 30 years since a jury determined that he had instigated the abuse that led to Kristy's death. 

Handing down his sentence, Judge Paget stated that the killing "surpassed belief".  He added that: "I am aware of the controversy of the meaning of the word sadistic in this context.  I am in no doubt that this murder involved a sadistic element.  The intention was to rid Kristy Bamu of witchcraft.  To do that both of you brutalized and physically abused him until eventually he died.  It was prolonged torture.  A belief in witchcraft, however genuine,  can never excuse an assault on another person or the killing of another human being.  I find it impossible not to conclude that there was an intention by you, Eric Bikubi, to kill.  Perhaps not at first, but certainly at the end of the ordeal inflicted on Kristy.  You, Magalie Bamu, must have realized that would happen.  Why else say to your mother : 'If you do not collect the children, Eric will kill Kristy'""

Kristy Bamu and his two sisters were accused of witchcraft shortly after arriving from France to visit Magalie Bamu and Eric Bikubi in their east London apartment.   According to testimony presented at the trial,  Kristy and his sisters were subjected to days of sleep deprivation, starvation, and repeated attacks with metal bars, wooden sticks, a hammer, and pliers in what the prosecutor described as "a prolonged attack of unspeakable savagery and brutality".  After days of abuse, Kristy Bamu reportedly confessed to being a sorceror to end the torture.  The boy and his sisters were then forced into a bathtub and submerged in water.  An autopsy showed that he died of drowning and the 101 injuries found on his body.

While belief in witchcraft remain common across much of Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, incidents involving attacks on accused witches have been on the upswing in the U.K. with at least 83 cases of children being attacked for "sorcery" in London alone.   Graphic cases of child witchcraft murder in the U.K. include Victoria Climbie, who was killed in 2000 by her guardians after accused of being a witch.   The torso of a still-unidentified Nigerian boy was found in the Thames river in 2001 and is believed to be the victim of a ritual healing sacrifice.   Forensic experts warn that Christian fundamentalist preachers in Britain have been fuelling the increasing belief in witchcraft.  Dr. Richard Hoskins, a police adviser and university lecturer who has written extensively on accused child witches, warned that Christian extremists often target immigrant families by offering expensive "deliverance services" including exorcisms, fastings, and sacrifices to rid them of malicious "spirits" believed to be tormenting them.  

While Kristy Bamu's murder and similar cases have sparked calls for police to crack down on violence against accused witches, the religious fervour driving anti-witch fear is not likely to go away anytime soon.

For more information.

What is Erotomania?

When Royce Baxter's GMC Yukon was pulled over in Washington's Thurston county in December 2010,  deputies found a handgun, four pit bulls, and a plastic bag of women's underwear, carefully sorted.  Police had been searching for Baxter after he had been spotted breaking into a home in Olympia, Washington.  Baxter's vehicle also contained a camera containing photos of the inside and outside of the house as well as pictures of the underwear of a woman living in the house and a key to the front door.    He had been obsessed with the woman, a former coworker, and had entered her house on repeated occasions to steal articles of her clothing.  Baxter was later charged with trying to have the woman's husband and his arresting officer killed.    In a statement that he made to the court during his trial, Baxter said "I am not the villain, the violent, dangerous person or criminal Detective Haller and Prosecutor (Andrew) Toynbee have attempted to so diligently and adamantly portray me as.  I am not a threat or danger to the victims … and I have never physically harmed, assaulted or injured anyone in any way, and I never would."

While everyone experiences "secret crushes" or infatuations at some point or other in their lifetimes, thosecrushes are usually harmless.   In more extreme cases though, the obsessive love can lead to far more serious consequences.  More often known as erotomania,  obsessive love is usually associated with celebrities being stalked by overzealous fans but such cases are probably more common than most people realize.   First identified by French psychiatrist Gaetan Gatian de Clerambault in his classic 1912 paper Les Psychoses Passionelles, the syndrome is also known as de Clerambault's syndrome in his honour.   Although de Clerambault considered erotomania to be found almost exclusively in females (all of the case studies in his paper were female), cases of males with erotomanic delusions were quickly identified as well   Numerous case histories have been reported in the psychiatric literature for decades but erotomania is no longer considered a separate diagnosis (it is not included in the DSM-IV and is usually classified as part of a broader delusional disorder such as schizophrenia).

 Known cases of delusional erotomania tend to share the following characteristics:

• A delusional conviction that he or she is has a "love connection" with the intended target, including  covert messages being passed back and forth
• The intended target is usually of a much higher rank or social status
• In many  cases, the patient insists that the other person fell in love first and made the initial advances
• While the intended target rebuffs the patient's advances, the patient then constructs elaborate explanations of why there is no real evidence of rejection
• The intended target endures months, if not years, of embarassment, humiliation, and fear over  the patient's advances.  If the patient is rejected too harshly, the intended target (or anyone perceived to be a threat to the relationship) may be physically harmed by the patient
• Erotomania is often a fixed delusion  which is resistant to any form of treatment

Celebrities stalked by obsessed fans include David Letterman, Uma Thurman, Steven Spielberg, Madonna,  and Rebecca Shaeffer (who was murdered by her stalker).    A study by forensic psychiatrist Park Dietz of  personal letters sent to celebrities and politicians  found that, of the 214 letters sent to celebrities, 16% showed erotomanic delusions with eleven of the writers actually believing that they were married to the object of their obsession.  Of the 100 people who wrote similar letters to politicians, five had erotomanic delusions and two believed that they were married.  While many erotomanics gradually give up when their love is not returned, the most dangerous cases involve love turning to hatred over perceived betrayal or jealousy.  One case that brought erotomania to public attention in  recent years, involved John  Hinckley Jr.'s obsession with actress Jodie Foster and the subsequent assassination attempt on  U.S. President Ronald Reagan on March 30, 1981.  For John Hinckley,  Jodie Foster became his entire world (likely triggered by her gripping portrayal as a prostitute in Taxi Driver).  After learning the location of her dormitory at Yale University,  Hinckley pursued Foster with numerous letters, phone calls, and notes designed to show his love for her.   In a page torn from an art book that was later found by his parents, Hinckley had written "Napoleon and Josephine- John and Jodie" under the picture of a bust of Napoleon Bonaparte.  The entire point of shooting the President involved proving to Jodie Foster that their union was inevitable by guaranteeing himself a place in the history books. 

In a final letter written just before the assassination attempt, Hinckley wrote that:

There is a definite possibility that I will be killed in my attempt to get Reagan.  It is for this very reason that I am writing you this letter now.  As you well know by now, I love you very much.  The past seven months I have left you dozens of poems, letters and messages in the faint hope you would develop an interest in me.  Although we talked on the phone a couple of times, I never had the nerve to simply introduce myself.   Besides my shyness,  I honestly did not wish to bother you.  I know the many messages left at your door and in your mailbox were a nuisance, but I felt it was the most painless way to express my love to you.  [...]

Jodie, I would abandon this idea of getting Reagan in a second if I could only win your heart and live out the rest of my life with you, whether it be in total obscurity or whatever.  I will admit to you that the reason I'm going ahead with this attempt now is because I cannot wait any longer to impress you.  I've got to do something now to make you understand in no uncertain terms that I am doing all of this for your sake. By sacrificing my freedome and possibly my life I hope to change your mind about me.  This letter is being written an hour before I leave for the Hilton Hotel.

Jodie, I'm asking you to please look into your heart, and at least give me the chance with this historical deed to gain your respect and love.  I love you forever.  John Hinckley.

Along with impressing Foster, Hinckley also apparently had a dream of somehow replacing President Reagan and living in the White House with her.  An unmailed postcard found by the FBI after the assassination attempt , Hinckley had written "Dear Jodie,  one day you and I will occupy the White House and the peasants will drool with envy".   While President Reagan recovered from the shooting, several others at the scene were not so lucky (including Press Secretary James Brady who was left permanently disabled).   Found not guilty by reason of insanity, Hinckley was confined to St. Elizabeth's Hospital in Washington, D.C.  where he has remained ever since.   Even after his trial, he insisted that the shooting was "the greatest love offering in the history of the world" and public outrage over his sentence has spurred new legislation to restrict the use of the insanity defense.    Although he has been allowed public outings on different occasions, continuing evidence of his  fixation on Jodie Foster has generated renewed concerns over potential risk to the public (including incidents in 1988 and 1999 when he was found to have smuggled materials about foster back to his hospial room).  John Hinckley is currently seeking to have many of his current restrictions lifted by the courts.

Erotomania is often associated with stalking behaviour but most cases of criminal sexual harassment typically involve former partners or former employees/coworkers.   While celebrities typically have security staff to deal with overly amorous admirers, ordinary citizens need to rely on police for protection.  Unfortunately, many victims of erotomanic stalkers are often reluctant to make a formal complaint due to fear of retaliation or the hope that the stalker will simply give up in time.  Even restraining orders are only marginally effective unless there is an anti-stalking law in place.  Victims should take every measure possible to protect themselves including providing a picture of the stalker to friends and family as well as having an emergency police number to call (preferably dealing with the same police officer each time).  They should also refuse to respond to the stalking in any way (including meeting with the stalker directly).  Every contact attempt by the stalker should be documented and reported and victims should insist on periodic police drivebys and a security system for protection.   Victims should also avoid being alone whenever possible and should carry a mobile phone and a personal alarm. 

Sadly, none of these measures are foolproof and victims are often left isolated and afraid since police rarely have the power to act effectively until after the stalker has become violent.    For more information and to learn about available resources, please contact the following organizations.

National Stalking Helpline (U.S)

Stalkingvictims.com

Network for Surviving Stalking (U.K.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Can Neuroimaging Help Understand Sex Differences in Cocaine Abuse?

A consistent observation in drug abuse research is that males and females show differences in their response to drugs of abuse. In order to understand the neurobiology underlying cocaine abuse and effective treatments, it is important to consider the role of sex differences. Sex hormones have been investigated in both behavioral and molecular studies, but further evidence addressing drug abuse and dependence in both sexes would expand our knowledge of sex differences in response to drugs of abuse. Neuroimaging is a powerful tool that can offer insight into the biological bases of these differences and meet the challenges of directly examining drug-induced changes in brain function. As such, neuroimaging has drawn much interest in recent years. Specifically, positron emission tomography (PET), single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) technology have emerged as effective noninvasive approaches for human and animal models. Studies have revealed sex-specific changes in patterns of brain activity in response to acute cocaine injection and after prolonged cocaine use. SPECT and PET studies have demonstrated changes in the dopamine transporter but are less clear on other components of the dopaminergic system. A recent review published in Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology   highlights contributions of neuroimaging toward understanding the role of sex differences in the drug abuse field, specifically regarding cocaine, and identifies relevant questions that neuroimaging can effectively address.

For the abstract

 

Why Are People So Skeptical About Psychology?

Why can't psychologists get respect?

A provocative article published recently in American Psychologist tackles that very question.  Written by Emory University psychologist , Scott Lilienfeld (who is also one of the co-authors of 50 Great Myths of Popular Psychology: Shattering Widespread Misconceptions about Human Behavior), the article examines why psychology has become the "Rodney Dangerfield of the sciences" with a public reputation for being unscientific.    While the science of psychology has often faced legitimate criticsm for overly depending on statistical significance testing, overly vague psychological models, and political correctness that limits legitimate scientific investigation into sensitive issues,  most of those criticisms have been raised by psychologists on the inside seeking to strengthen the discipline as a whole.  Most of these disputes are often invisible to people outside psychology itself and public skepticism concerning psychology typically focus on misunderstandings of what psychology is and the sorts of questions that psychologists attempt to answer.   This pervasive misunderstanding can have far-reaching consequences.   Not only do elected politicians voting on science funding often short-change psychological research projects for not being "real science" (including omitting psychology from some funding agencies lists for  STEM disciplines), but potential mental health consumers who might otherwise benefit from psychological treatment may be reluctant to seek help due to misconceptions about what a psychologist actually does.

While psychologist advocacy groups (including the American Psychological Association and the Association for Psychological Science) have tried to fight back againt these misconceptions, public attitudes concerning psychology and psychological research have been slow to change.  In 2006, the American Psychological Association Science Directorate released a pamphlet titled  Prepare Now to Prevail If Your Research is Attacked:  Self-Defense for the Psychological Scientist which basically advised researchers on how to defend themselves  against political, media, and public attacks that misrepresent their findings.   The pamphlet provides basic self-defense tips such as: 

• Be aware that the grant application abstract from your research is accessible to and searchable by the public and Congress and should describe your research in lay terms.
• Create an easy-to-understand, one-page summary of your research that illustrates why it is important to the public.
• Request media training from your university.  and
• Establish a relationship with your university’s public and legislative affairs office.

Unfortunately, as Dr. Lilienfeld points out, efforts by researchers to fight misconceptions about their research are only mildly effective since they overlook the underlying reasons for widespread skepticism about psychology.   In addressing this skepticism, he focused on two basic questions:  a) are the negative views of psychology's scientific status held by many outsiders warranted? and b) what are the principal sources of the views?    Negative media views about psychology date to the very beginnings of psychology itself wth early psychologists such as William James who wrote uncritically about spiritualism and other pseudoscientific fads.  While other psychologists including Hugo Munsterberg and Theodore Flournoy distinguished themselves as skeptical debunkers, their efforts tended not to be so well-publicized.  Early attempts by forensic psychologists to prove the crediblity of psychological research in the courtroom also helped damage the credibility of psychologists as a whole.  As one example, Harvard psychologist, Hugo Munsterberg, had a particularly troubling love-hate relationship with the media and his testimony during the 1907 Harry Orchard trial severely undermined the credibility of the fledgling science of forensic psychology for years afterward.  Regardless of the scientific merits of the research, media  controversies surrounding psychologists such as William Moulton Marston and his lie detector, B.F. Skinner' and his "Heir Conditioner", and Wilhelm Reich and orgone technology likely reinforced the view of mental health researchers as wooly-headed and unscientific.

Even in the the present day, numerous editorials and unflattering stories about psychological research are still common.  A 1982 New York Times editorial by Nicholas Wade reported on a Psychology Today survey that asked eleven psychologists to identify the most significant finding in psychology for the previous fifteen years.   The editorial, titled "If This is Consensus, Psychology Can't Be Much of a Science" used the lack of consensus among the polled psychologists and concluded that  "The results are astonishing: it would seem that there have been none".  The editorial's author added that the failed consensus "evinces a serious problem in their academic discipline".    It was during this same period that David Stockman, President Reagan's then-Director of the Office of Management and Budget justified the decision to slash behavioural science funding by declaring that psychology was a pseudo-science. 

Along with unflattering criticisms of psychology in the media, opinion surveys have indicated that large segments of society continue to view psychology as unscientific and that daily life experiences were often sufficient to provide most people with adequate exposure to make informed opinions about human behaviour.  One 1998 survey study found that both the general population and college faculty rated psychology and sociology as being significant lower than five other disciplines (biology, chemistry, economics, medicine, and physics) in terms of their "contribution of the discipline to society".  Psychologists were specifically identified as being lower in expertise than most other disciplines and that the general population was typically better off relying on "common sense".

A 2008 marketing study commissioned by the American Psychological Association reflected ongoing public misgivings about the scientific value of psychology.  While 82 per cent of study respondents agreed that psychological research helped to improve people's lives, only a minority of participants had a clear idea of what psychologists actually did or the full range of research issues addressed by psychological research.  The overwhelming consensus was that psychology is a "soft science" with less rigour than most other disciplines as well as requiring less time to develop expertise as opposed to other sciences.   Other studies have shown widespread skepticism about psychology's value to society compared to other scientific disciplines seen as more important.

But why is this skepticism so widespread?  According to Dr. Lilienfield, the skepticism often focuses on six common misconceptions about psychology that are often cited by critics:

• Psychology is merely "common sense"
• Psychology does not use scientific methods
• Psychology can not yield meaningful generalizations because everyone is unique
• Psychology does not yield repeatable results
• Psychology can not make precise predictions
• Psychology is not useful to society

While psychologists can respond to these misconceptions effectively, Dr. Lilienfield stresses that widespread skepticism is often reinforced by the slowness on the part of psychologist to weed out those questionable practice that often still thrive.   These practices include the continuing use of treatments and tests that do not have adequate scientific support such as alternative medicine, "recovered memories" of past abuse using hypnosis or other suggestive techniques, as well as the failure of psychologists to use the best evidence-based treatments to treat emotional or behavioural problems.   Of the thousands of self-help books (many of which prominently feature the authors as psychologists), only a small percentage actually off scientifically tested information.  These books often feature oversimplified advice or make elaborate claims that go well beyond established scientific research.   Also,there seems to be widespread resistance among psychologists to test established mental health treatments scientifically which can often feed into public skepticism.

In the end, this failure to police psychology as a whole means that media psychologists such as Dr Phil McGraw and Dr. Laura Schlessinger (whose Ph.D is in physiology) are free to present themselves as psychology's public face and to dispense unscientific advice freely.  That  the American Psychological Association invited "Dr. Phil" to speak at its 2006 annual convention to highlight the effective communication of psychology to the public reflects the problem that many psychologists face in being accepted as scientists.  Even the very word "psychologist" is often a source of confusiondue to role diffusion between psychologists, psychotherapists, psychoanalysts, social workers, and psychiatrists who often provide highly similar services.   Surveys have consistently shown that large segments of the American general population are unable to distinguish between different mental health professionals.

Along with the general role confusion facing psychologists seeking acceptance, Dr.Lilienfeld also identified cognitive biases underlying public skepticism of psychological research.   These include hindsight bias (regarding a research conclusion as seeming obvious in hindsight),  that research questions addressed by psychologists are often perceived as less difficult to answer than questions addressed by scientists in other disciplines, the failure to distinguish basic from applied research, the popularity of reductionist explanations of human behaviour (including explanations based on neuroscience, biochemistry, and human evolution),  as well as the refusal to accept that certain subjects can be tested empirically at all, a.k.a  the scientific impotence excuse. 

So where does this leave us?   While large segments of the general population are still skeptical of psychology's value, survey data suggests some cause for optimism although there is considerably more that needs to be done.   As Dr. Lilienfeld points out, psychologists cannot blame their continuing credibility problems exclusively on public misconceptions.    The failure of psychologists to embrace evidence-based practices and to keep advocating treatments that have been shown not to work effectively is definitely part of the problem.  As well, we shouldn't let flashy media psychologists continue to be seen as psychology's public face instead of the more legitimate research psychologists who can provide a more balanced view of what psychology is realy about.   Since academics are often reluctant to confront pseudoscience, misconceptions continue to flourish.

In his conclusion, Dr. Lilienfeld makes the following recommendations:  on the individual level,  psychologists need to make a greater effort to make their work available to the public through popular writing (Daniel Kahnemann, Steven Pinker, Dan Ariely,  Christoper Chabris and Daniel Simons are all examples of psychologists who have written bestselling books on psychology).   On the institutional level, universities and psychology advocacy groups need to make a greater effort to integrate psychological research into psychology's public face instead of simply reacting blindly to controversies as they arise.  He also stresses the need to debate the often legitimate objections that many people raise to questionable practices in psychology and to weed out those fads that are ultimately damaging to our reputations as psychologists.  Psychologists should stop feeling threatened by public skepticism and learn to recognize that this skepticism can be a useful way of identifying potential problems in our profession and how we are seen by non-psychologists.

To close this post, I think Dr. Lilienfeld's closing words would probably work best:

Just as former New York City Mayor Ed Koch (1981) became famous for asking his constituents “How'm I doing?” as a means of gauging his performance, we as a field should continually be asking the general public “How are we doing?” and be prepared to take their critical feedback to heart if their answers are not to our liking

For the abstract.

 

The Shocking Dr. Webster (Part 2)

Continued from Part 1

Littlefield became suspicious of Webster making repeated trips from the fuel closet to the laboratory furnace which he kept burning to the point that the adjoining wall was hot to the touch.  After Webster left, Littlefield climbed into his rooms through a window to investigate (all the doors were still bolted).  He found nothing suspicious except for odd acid stains though Webster would later ask him a number of unusual questions about the dissecting vaults and Parkman's disappearance.  When the police searched his rooms and laboratories, Webster later surprised Littlefield with a Thanksgiving turkey as a gift (which he had never done before).

On Thanksgiving day, Littlefield decided to investigate further and sneaked in to excavate the disposal pit under Webster's private laboratory.   After finding human remains, he ran to the home of another professor and police were called.  Although there was no way to verify that the remains belonged to George Parkman (it was a dissecting vault, after all), John Webster was arrested and formally charged with Parkman's murder.  Webster denied committing murder and tried to place the blame on Littlefield.  He then attempted suicide in his cell but the strychnine that he took only made him ill.   A search of the furnace turned up other bone fragments and a chest containing an armless, legless, partially burned torso.  While a precise identification seemed impossible in that pre-CSI era, Mrs. Parkman confirmed that the body belonged to her husband based on several identifying marks.   Parkman's brother-in-law confirmed that the body was his as welldue to  the extreme hairiness of the torso.   Police also found bloody clothing belonging to Parkman and several members of the Harvard faculty conducted a thorough forensic analysis to determine that the body's height matched Parkman's exactly.

The George Parkman murder was the talk of Boston and numerous murder scenarios were spun out in the local newspapers.  While John Webster had already been arrested, his friends and colleagues were reluctant to believe that an eminent academic could have committed murder.   Several of the alternative murder theories advanced by Webster's defenders suggested that Ephraim Littlefield was the real murderer, mainly because he had a known dislike for the upper-class, Harvard faculty and John Webster in particular.    Since a coroner's jury determined that there was enough evidence to try John Webster for killing and dismembering Parkman, he was held for trial.  The stigma overhanging him and his family was enough for most of his former colleagues to distance themselves.  Many leading lawyers, including the eminent Daniel Webster, refused to defend him although he eventually received the best defense possible. 

After a spectacular twelve-day trial with Ephraim Littlefield being the star witness against him, John White Webster was found guilty of murder and sentenced to be hanged.  Public opinion was sharply divided over whether Webster was guilty and his lawyers attempted to appeal the verdict.   Despite arguing that the judge, Lemuel Shaw, had made several errors in his instructions to the jury, the appeal was denied and a plea to the governor for a pardon was denied as well.   Finally, desperate to save himself from hanging, John Webster wrote a full confession to killing Parkman but insisted that it had been in self-defense when Parkman became overly aggressive in trying to get him to repay his debt.   The point of his confession was to demonstrate that the killing had not been premeditated but was an "act of passion".   Despite his plea for mercy, the governor remained unmoved and the execution went ahead as planned.

John White Webster went to the gallows on August 30, 1850.  It was a public execution and Webster was buried in Boston's Copps' Hill Burying Ground (Harvard Medical College had no interest in claiming Webster's ody for dissection).    Despite lingering rumours that the hanging had been faked at that Dr. Webster escaped to the Azores, his wife and children were left destitute except for money from a fund collected for their benefit, along with a contribution from George Parkman's widow.  As for Ephraim Littlefield, he retired comfortably on the hefty reward that the Parkman family gave him for his role in solving the murder and convicting Webster.

The murder of George Parkman fascinated visitors to Boston for years after Webster's hanging and is still a prominent part of Boston's history.  The Parkman-Webster murder case has spawned a minor industry including books, television documentaries, and an iPhone app (the first to be accepted by a major film festival).  The complex legacy surrounding John White Webster and the trial that convicted him can't be underestimated.  As one of the first legal trials to allow scientific evidence as testimony,  the case set a legal precedent that demonstrated the value of forensic medicine to solve crimes.  

While hardly the sort of legacy that John White Webster would have wanted to leave behind, he is definitely still remembered today. 

 

 

 

 

Why Do High-Risk Youths Commit Suicide?

The association between suicidal ideation, friendships with delinquents, and social/parental connectedness among pre/early adolescents who live  in high-risk communities is poorly understood.  A study recently published in Crisis: The Journal of Crisis Intervention and Suicide Prevention examined high-risk youths for:(1) the association between suicidal ideation and having delinquent friends, school connectedness, social support, and different parenting styles (i.e., caring only, supervision only, caring with supervision); and, (2) the differential associations by sex. The associations were assessed among 2,598 pre/early adolescents using logistic regression. The analyses were adjusted for demographic, mental distress, illicit substance use, and peer/date violence victimization factors. The interaction terms determined differences by sex. Results showed that after adjusting for demographic factors and mental distress, suicidal ideation was positively associated with having delinquent friends; however, after factoring in illicit substance use and violence victimization, this association was negative for males. After adjusting for all factors, suicidal ideation was negatively associated with school connectedness and all parenting styles; however, the association between suicidal ideation and having parental caring with supervision was stronger for females.  The results suggest the potential benefits of increasing school connectedness and improving parent-child interactions, particularly among females, and the potential benefits of violence and substance-abuse prevention strategies for youths, particularly males, connected with delinquent peers.

For the abstract.