Scott,
I do share your concerns that there are some problems with design and
potential interpretation of the results. But I doubt if any of our
dissertations were "air-tight". Don't get me wrong, the design issues
need to be addressed and any generalizations from this study would be,
imho, tenuous at best. On the other hand, there are a significant
number of "dissertations" from APA accredited Psy.D. programs which
are not much more than extensive literature reviews or that may only
involve only a couple survey instruments with relatively simple
correlational analyses. Again, I am not defending these, but compared
to that approach, I find at least an attempt at experimental
manipulation encouraging. In addition, this individual seemed to be
thinking outside the "baaa"ox. ;-)
So I would say, problematic, "yes"; astounding and ridiculous "not".
Cheers,
-S
On Jan 18, 2006, at 10:30 AM, Scott Lilienfeld wrote:
Just curious....
Am I the only TIPs member who finds it rather silly to conduct a
study that on attachment that:
(1) relies exclusively on participants diagnosed with one of the most
poorly validated diagnoses in the DSM (reactive attachment disorder,
for which the validity evidence is very poor);
(2) attempts to measure changes in attachment among a group of
children with severe and lasting attachment deficits, who presumably
would be among the very children most resistant to short-term changes
in attachment;
(3) anticipates statistically (and presumably clinically) significant
changes in measured attachment behavior in children with severe and
lasting attachment deficits as a consequence of a single videotaped
presentation;
(4) relies exclusively on an independent variable that almost surely
exerts markedly multiple effects within and across participants (e.g.,
empathy, disgust, curiosity, fascination), rendering negative (and
perhaps even positive) findngs difficult to interpret;
(5) relies on an independent variable that features both (a) the
birthing process itself and (b) modeling of parenting behavior with
children, rendering any positive findings difficult to interpret;
(6) relies on an independent variable that confounds two influences:
(a) the direct exposure of participants to cute animals with (b) the
direct witnessing of the birthing process in such animals, making it
impossible to determine whether any positive findings might be due to
(a), (b), or their interaction; and (7) relies solely on the birth of
an animal rather than a human as an independent variable yet uses
dependent measures that assess attachment to relationships with other
children, so that negative findings could readily be due to an absence
of generalization in attachment feelings across species?
If so, I guess I'll just have to play the role of TIPS Grinch
today......
....Scott
Beth Benoit wrote:
I sent that info to a very bright student of mine who, with her
husband, runs a farm with sheep and goats. I agree with her, and
didn't find the paper to be ridiculous or astonishing at all. Below
is an excerpt from her reply:
Beth Benoit
Granite State College
Portsmouth NH
Do I take it that Scott Lilienfeld doubts the efficacy of the
experiment? Two years ago my neighbor brought her steadfastly
unattached
21-year-old daughter to the farm to see the babies. They witnessed
twin
kids being born. The daughter promptly proposed to her boyfriend
and had a
baby. She says that seeing the birth and the mother goat's behavior
radically changed her feelings. Anecdotal but interesting. I'm a
firm
believer in animal behavior informing our own (for better and worse).
---
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
========================================================
Steven M. Specht, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Psychology
Utica College
Utica, NY 13502
(315) 792-3171
"Mice may be called large or small, and so may elephants, and it is
quite understandable when someone says it was a large mouse that ran up
the trunk of a small elephant" (S. S. Stevens, 1958)
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
