Introduction to Abnormal Child and Adolescent Psychology. Robert Weis

Чтение книги онлайн.

      ©iStockphoto.com/tolgart

      During the trial, facilitated communication was put to the test. The judge asked Aislinn’s facilitator to leave the room. Then, the judge asked Aislinn several easy questions: Do you have a brother or a sister? Am I a boy or a girl? What color sweater am I wearing? When the facilitator returned, Aislinn responded using facilitated communication. The results of the test were consistent and startling. On every trial, when the facilitator could not hear the question, Aislinn’s answers were nonsensical.

      Facilitated communication is an example of a pseudoscientific treatment that is not falsifiable. Facilitated communication was developed in the 1980s as a treatment for children with severe autism. Many of these children were nonverbal and could not communicate with others. Proponents of facilitated communication believed that these children had normal cognitive skills, but their neurological problems limited their ability to talk. By using a keyboard, these children could learn to type messages while a trained “facilitator” supported their hand, wrist, or arm. When first introduced, facilitated communication was viewed as a miracle cure. For the first time in their lives, many of these children were able to share their thoughts and feelings, participate in school, and even tell their parents, “I love you” (Foxx & Mulick, 2016).

      Facilitated communication also had problems, however. Consider Aislinn, a girl who revealed some of the shortcomings of this “miracle cure.”

      Aislinn’s inability to answer questions in court discredited the practice of facilitated communication. Nevertheless, supporters of facilitated communication remained steadfast in their beliefs. When Aislinn and her facilitator were asked why Aislinn could not answer such easy questions, they typed, “I AM AFRAID.” Supporters argued that facilitated communication worked—but only when participants were not being scrutinized or evaluated by others. Based on this reasoning, facilitated communication was not falsifiable—it could not be proven wrong. If Aislinn typed the wrong answers, it was because the test situation was faulty, not the technique itself.

      All charges against Aislinn’s father were dropped and her family received more than $5.75 million in compensation. Although scientific evidence has discredited the practice of facilitated communication, it continues to be offered under new names like “supported typing” and “rapid prompting” across the United States (Hemsley et al., 2019; Lilienfeld, Marshall, Todd, & Shane, 2015).

      Principle 2: Critical Thinking

      Psychological scientists also rely on critical thinking. Rather than accepting information at face value or based on personal beliefs and the opinions of others, scientists seek plausible alternative explanations for behavior. They remain skeptical and always ask, “What is the evidence?”

      A lack of critical thinking can be seen in the use of therapeutic touch to treat children with physical illnesses or injuries. Therapeutic touch is based on the belief that humans have an energy field that extends beyond the surface of the body. When this energy field becomes misaligned, unbalanced, or obstructed, we can experience anxiety, depression, pain, or sickness. Practitioners of therapeutic touch claim to be able to assess a patient’s energy field by placing their hands slightly above a person’s skin. If an energy disturbance is detected, the practitioner can rebalance, harmonize, or restore the patient’s energy field using special manipulations.

      Therapeutic touch is usually practiced by nurses and other health professionals. It is most often used with children to treat anxiety, asthma, headaches, sleep problems, and chronic pain.

      Emily Rosa was skeptical of therapeutic touch (Image 3.2). Although many patients claimed that the practice reduced anxiety and pain, she wondered if these changes might simply be due to patients’ expectations and hopes for symptom reduction. Could practitioners really feel and manipulate someone’s energy field?

      Rosa asked therapeutic touch practitioners to perform a simple test (Rosa, Rosa, Sarner, & Barrett, 1998). Each practitioner placed his or her hand under a screen with palms facing upward. Then, Rosa placed her hand immediately above the practitioner’s left or right palm, in random order. If practitioners could detect another person’s energy field, they should be able to “feel” the energy coming from Rosa and select the correct hand 100% of the time. However, the results showed that practitioners identified the correct hand only 44% of the time—worse than flipping a coin. Rosa’s critical thinking discredited the practice of therapeutic touch. Nevertheless, it continues to be offered at hospitals and clinics by well-intentioned paraprofessionals across the country (Schlefman, Rappaport, Adams-Gerdts, & Stubblefield, 2017).