Posts archived in Abnormality


There is increasing evidence that psychoanalysis may be an effective therapy. A landmark review by Shedler (2010) included a number of randomised control trials* where psychodynamic therapies proved as effective as other forms of therapy. Midgley and Kennedy (2011) conducted another review, this time of studies relating to children and young adults and again found strong evidence of the value of psychodynamic therapies.

In fact Shedler suggests that non-psychodynamic therapies may be effective in part because therapists use techniques that have long been central to psychodynamic theory and practice, such as gaining awareness of previously implicit feelings.

Shedler describes psychodynamic therapies as ‘a range of treatments based on psychoanalytic concepts and methods that involve less frequent meetings and may be considerably briefer than psychoanalysis proper. Session frequency is typically once or twice per week, and the treatment may be either time limited or open ended. The essence of psychodynamic therapy is exploring those aspects of self that are not fully known, especially as they are manifested and potentially influenced in the therapy relationship’. In his article he provides a useful description of the techniques used in the therapy.

*A randomised control trial is the gold standard of medical research where patients are randomly assigned to treatment or no treatment groups.

Asch’s classic study judging the length of lines demonstrated people will go along with majority opinion even when the answer is clearly wrong. One of the key questions was whether they were just going along with the answers (called ‘compliance’), or whether the majority influence actually changed their opinions (i.e. they internalised the majority view).

A recent study (Zaki et al., 2011 see BPS digest) provides evidence that people are not just complying. In this study men rated the attractiveness of 180 female faces. When they entered their ratings other peer ratings were displayed which were sometimes much higher and sometimes much lower.

About a half-hour later, the participants rated each of the faces again. The outcome was that their ratings had been influenced by the others’ opinions – when the peer rating was higher than theirs, the participants now rated the faces as more attractive and when the peer rating had been lower, the participants’ ratings were now lower.

Most importantly the researchers had scanned the participants’ brains on the second task. When the participants shifted to a more favourable view, activity was triggered in a reward-related area of the brain (it was rewarding to look at these faces). This wasn’t the case when they shifted to a less favourable view. This shows that the the faces rated attractively by peers had increased in value i.e. the opinions of others had been internalised.

Some of you will have heard my talk last November at the Science and Pseudoscience conference explaining why Milgram’s study is not an experiment, even though he called it one. The same issue has arisen with Asch’s classic conformity experiment – oops – study. You can read the lengthy discussion over on psychexchange, but briefly …

In the WJEC AS book we have written (on page 72) Asch’s study is not an experiment and failed to explain why. It is not an experiment because the behaviour being studied (conformity) is not caused by Asch’s manipulation. Some participants conformed whereas others didn’t (a kind of dependent variable). However this difference did not depend on any independent variable – the behaviour of the confederates or the different trials (confederates giving correct answer or erroneous answer). Therefore it is not an experiment, it is a demonstration of conformity or an investigation, if we want to label it. Asch did call it an experiment but people used the term more loosely then.

In his subsequent variations Asch was conducting an experiment e.g. he varied the size of the group which had an effect on whether participants conformed or not (one confederate led to little conformity, 3 led to more). We can therefore conclude that the size of the group causes conformity.

On page 69 (baseline study, paragraph 4) I have called it an experiment! An error.

The excellent BBC radio series about case studies in psychology is returning this week and is about Henry Molaison (HM) – on Wednesday 11 August at 11 am. You can find details here. The blurb in the Radio Times says ‘In 1953, after a brain operation to cure his epilepsy, Henry Molaison was left unable to form new memories. But he was happy that others would benefit from the research conducted into his condition; he was happy every time he was told about it because it was always news to him. Recordings of Molaison made before he died in 2008 make this a particularly poignant programme. Claudia Hammond talks to the scientists who studied him and got to know him, though, sadly, he never got to know them.’

The programme also covers the story of HM’s brain after his death – which you can read about here. Provokes some interesting ethical questions about a person who couldn’t give informed consent.

The previous case studies series covered Kitty Genovese, The Wild Boy of Aveyron, The Man with the Hole in his Head and Little Hans. Some of these can be downloaded from Psychexchange, see here.

Women in our culture generally have richer social networks than men, and this observation has been used as part of the explanation for women coping better with stress and living longer. Now a meta-analysis has shown that a low number of friends, family, colleagues etc. in a person’s social network has similar negative effects on health and longevity as smoking, obesity, sedentary lifestyle or over-use of alcohol. The researchers say that their analysis was not able to differentiate between positive and negative social relationships, so having a good number of positive ones might give an even stronger effect on living healthier and longer!

Holt-Lunstad J, Smith TB, Layton JB. Social Relationships and Mortality Risk: A Meta-analytic Review. PLoS Medicine, 2010; 7 (7):

Exergames are new video games based on using the Wii. They use physical activity not sight as input and have been developed for use in the fight against obesity. Now they have been adapted so that children with visual impairments can play them, important because these children as a result of sight problems do not find it easy to take healthy exercise and so are at a higher risk of obesity.
Research team leader Eelke Folmer says the modification that enables the games, such as tennis, to be played without visual feedback use audio and vibro-tactile feedback. Like standard Wii games these new ones can be played against other people or the computer. So far these games have been very successful in getting sight impaired people to exercise vigorously, though the sample sizes have been very small.
To play the VI Fit games, a user would need a Wii remote and a Windows PC with bluetooth support or a USB bluetooth dongle. The games can be downloaded using instructions at www.vifit.org. The games are not affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo.

The WJEC AS Complete Companion was published (finally) on Friday 23 October. I only received my copy in the post this morning so hopefully everyone will receive theirs soon. Please do let us know your thoughts – good as well as bad! If you do come across mistakes then let us know so we can put them right.

The answers to the Can You questions can be found under the ‘Book Resources’ tab (the ones for Chapter 6 are coming very soon).

0 comments

WJEC AS book

The suggested answers for the ‘Can You’ questions from Chapters 1-4 are now available (click the ‘book resources’ tab). At the moment the formatting has been lost but hopefully this will be resolved soon!

The AS WJEC textbook will be published by October 23rd. In the meantime you can download some chapters for free – click on ‘sample chapters’ on the tool bar.