Why study group therapy?

Group therapy training is highly valuable for the overall professional practice of psychotherapy. Learning to be a group therapist means learning about shame, resistance, fears of engulfment and abandonment, maintaining a self in relation to others, promoting empathic connection, strong affects in the moment, multiple experiences of the same interaction or event, and group dynamics. These concepts are highly relevant to all clinical work and other aspects of professional life. Training in group therapy should place greater emphasis on its broader applicability.     

Ready or not? Stages of change as predictors of brief group therapy outcome in bulimia nervosa

Although group therapy is often recommended for the treatment of bulimia nervosa, relatively little is known about predictors of short-term outcome. This pilot study examined whether a standardized measure of readiness for change might be related to changes in binge frequency. Sixteen bulimic patients participated in short-term cognitive behavioral group therapy for twelve weeks. Each patient completed the Change Assessment Scale prior to treatment, along with a battery of symptom measures which were readministered at the conclusion of therapy. Bulimic patients with positive outcome in binge frequency were at a higher stage of readiness for change at pretreatment than were patients with negative outcome. Results indicated that there may be methods of determining who would be most likely to benefit from cognitive behavioral group therapy, and tentatively suggest that interventions may be more successful when readiness for change is taken into consideration.     

Why do people change in therapy? A preliminary study

Why do people change in therapy? A preliminary study. This work represents the beginning of a new way to study the processes that can explain the therapeutic change. The method used is the observation and analysis of therapeutic sessions directly recorded and developed inside a behavioural approach. The category system tries to carry out a functional analysis of the therapist-client interaction which enables the identification of learning processes that work in clinical setting and explain success in therapy. Outcomes are provisional but show the utility of this initial trend of investigation to the comprehension of clinical phenomenon. Conclusions also emphasize the importance of associative learning processes on the therapeutic change.     

Why a family perspective for pain?

Although it is well established that families have a strong influence on individuals' beliefs and behaviors related to health and illness, relatively little attention has been devoted to the family's role in the development, maintenance, and treatment of pain or to the impact of chronic pain in one family member upon other family members. A major source of information about pain and how to respond to pain symptoms is learned within the family setting. This article reviews ways in which pain conceptualizations are developed in the family and highlights the need to more carefully study health as well as dysfunctional family reactions to chronic pain. A case example is presented that details the far reaching consequences that chronic pain can have on family life. It is concluded that more careful research, particularly in terms of the operationalization of theoretical constructs and the reliable assessment of these constructs, is needed before any definitive statements can be made about the importance and characteristics of pain-family transactions.     

Does self-disclosure in friendship increase following group counseling/therapy? A different case for boys and girls

This study, conducted in Israel, investigated the effect of group counseling/therapy on self-disclosure in a close friendship of preadolescent boys and girls. A short monologue to a close friend was recorded and analyzed before and after the intervention and compared to a control group. Results indicated gender differences: The adjusted post scores for girls were higher than those for boys both in quality and quantity of self-disclosure. Moreover, the group by gender effect suggests that experimental girls gained more than boys from the experience in their ability to share more meaningful and private information; boys actually adjusted their level of disclosure to that of the control boys. Finally, experimental boys and girls adjusted their levels of quantity of disclosure, whereas control boys and girls grew apart, in this respect. The results are discussed in the context of gender subcultures.     

Does individualization matter? A randomized trial of standardized (focused) versus individualized (broad) cognitive behavior therapy for bulimia nervosa

Does higher level of individualization increase treatment efficacy? Fifty patients with bulimia nervosa were randomized into either manual-based (focused) or more individualized (broader) cognitive behavioral therapy guided by logical functional analysis. Eating disorders Examination and a series of self-report questionnaires were used for assessment at pre-, and post-treatment as well as at follow-up. Both conditions improved significantly at post-treatment, and the results were maintained at the 6 months follow-up. There were no statistically and clinically significant differences between the two conditions at post-treatment with the exception of abstinence from objective bulimic episodes, eating concerns, and body shape dissatisfaction, all favoring the individualized, broader condition. Both groups improved concerning self-esteem, perceived social support from friends, and depression. The improvements were maintained at follow-up. Ten patients (20%) did not respond to the treatment. Notably, a majority of non-responders (80%) were in the manual-based condition. Non-responders showed extreme dominance of rule-governed behavior, and lack of contact with actual contingencies compared to responders. The study provided preliminary support for the superiority of higher level of individualization (i.e. broader CBT) in terms of the response to treatment, and relapses. However, the magnitude of effects was moderate, and independent replications, with blind assessment procedures, and a larger sample sized are needed before more clear cut conclusions can be drawn.     

Women's neuroethics? Why sex matters for neuroethics

The Neuroethics Affinity Group of the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities (ASBH) met for the third time in October 2007 to review progress in the field of neuroethics and consider high-impact priorities for the future. Closely aligned with ASBH's own goals of recruiting junior scholars to bioethics and mentoring them to successful careers, the Neuroethics Affinity Group placed a call for new ideas to be presented at the Group meeting, specifically by junior attendees. One group responded with the idea to probe a new direction for neuroethics focused on the neuroscience of gender differences. In the spirit of full disclosure, two of the authors are a student (Chalfin) and fellow (Murphy) of the program I formerly directed at Stanford University. The third (Karkazis) is junior faculty there. The intellectual ownership of the ideas in the report below, however, are entirely theirs. Like lit torches in a juggling act, there are many directions this project can go. The report is a snapshot of these authors' first iteration of the concept of women's neuroethics. Many thanks are extended to participants of the ASBH Neuroethics Affinity Group meeting whose enthusiasm and feedback was immensely helpful in shaping the concept and moving it ahead.     

Why Me? Why Not Me?

The decision to undergo BRCA testing is very complex and emotionally laden. This decision can be further complicated by the loss of a mother at an early age. The following personal account by a genetic counselor discusses the testing process and the struggle to accept the results and reframe one’s self-identity. The sensitive nature of this testing and the implications for other family members is explored.     

Constitutional causes for technological leadership: Why Europe?

In a paper circulated toward the end of 1997 under the title “Why Europe?,” Gordon Tullock posed a simple question and provided a tentative, yet provocative answer. The question is why the technological takeoff took place in Europe when well into the eighteenth century other areas of the world, notably China, looked much better poised for technological and scholarly leadership than Europe. His tentative answer turns on the constitutional composition of the landscape of political entities in Europe. This essay provides further underpinnings to Gordon Tullock’s preliminary answer.     

Why are hispanics at greater risk for PTSD?

Several studies have found that Hispanic Americans have higher rates of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) than non-Hispanic Caucasian and Black Americans. The authors identified predictors of PTSD symptom severity that distinguished Hispanic police officers (n=189) from their non-Hispanic Caucasian (n=317) and Black (n=162) counterparts and modeled them to explain the elevated Hispanic risk for PTSD. The authors found that greater peritraumatic dissociation, greater wishful thinking and self-blame coping, lower social support, and greater perceived racism were important variables in explaining the elevated PTSD symptoms among Hispanics. Results are discussed in the context of Hispanic culture and may be important for prevention of mental illness in the fastest growing ethnic group in the United States.     

Why are familiar-only experiences more frequent for voices than for faces?

Hanley,Smith, and Hadfield (1998) showed that when participants were asked to recognize famous people from hearing their voice , there was a relatively large number of trials in which the celebrity's voice was felt to be familiar but biographical information about the person could not be retrieved. When a face was found familiar, however, the celebrity's occupation was significantly more likely to be recalled. This finding is consistent with the view that it is much more difficult to associate biographical information with voices than with faces. Nevertheless, recognition level was much lower for voices than for faces in Hanleyet al.'s study,and participants made significantly more false alarms in the voice condition. In the present study, recognition performance in the face condition was brought down to the same level as recognition in the voice condition by presenting the faces out of focus. Under these circumstances, it proved just as difficult to recall the occupations of faces found familiar as it was to recall the occupations of voices found familiar. In other words, there was an equally large number of familiar-only responses when faces were presented out of focus as in the voice condition. It is argued that these results provide no support for the view that it is relatively difficult to associate biographical information with a person's voice. It is suggested instead that associative connections between processing units at different levels in the voice-processing system are much weaker than is the case with the corresponding units in the face-processing system. This will reduce the recall of occupations from voices even when the voice has been found familiar. A simulation was performed using the latest version of the IAC model of person recognition (Burton, Bruce, & Hancock, 1999) which demonstrated that the model can readily accommodate the pattern of results obtained in this study.     

Why Intentions?

There is an influential conception of intentional agency in terms of just beliefs and desires. And there is an equally influential conception that adds intentions as separate ingredients. It remains disputed whether (1) adding intentions is really necessary, and (2) what difference that addition exactly makes. I argue that (1) adding intentions is required, but only because and insofar as (2) it makes room for a distinctively practical kind of reasoning. I critically consider Bratman's main considerations in support of adding intentions, viz., conduct‐control, inertia, and input for practical reasoning, and argue that a desire‐belief theorist can easily accommodate those. I then reconsider all three Bratmanian considerations in order to establish a more fundamental difference in terms of a robust notion of practical reasoning. Such a difference can be found if we place Bratman's considerations in the light of Sebastian Rödl's idea of a measure or order of practical reasoning.     

Why Homophobia?

Suzanne Pharr's Homophobia: A Weapon of Sexism may be an effective tool for women committed to overcoming their own homophobia who want practical advice on recognizing and eradicating it, although as an essay in theory it does not advance the issues. The author seems unaware that Celia Kitzinger has argued recently that “homophobia” is not a helpful concept because it individualizes problems better seen as political and begs the question of the rationality of the fear. I argue that “homophobia” has been misused but that freed of the medical model and understood in connection with issues of pride and shame, it can be a helpful concept.     

Why Naturalism?

My goal in this paper is to explain what ethical naturalism is, to locate the pivotal issue between naturalists and non-naturalists, and to motivate taking naturalism seriously. I do not aim to establish the truth of naturalism nor to answer the various familiar objections to it. But I do aim to motivate naturalism sufficiently that the attempt to deal with the objections will seem worthwhile. I propose that naturalism is best understood as the view that the moral properties are natural in the sense that they are empirical. I pursue certain issues in the understanding of the empirical. The crux of the matter is whether any synthetic proposition about the instantiation of a moral property is strongly a priori in that it does not admit of empirical evidence against it. I propose an argument from epistemic defeaters that, I believe, undermines the plausibility of a priorism in ethics and supports the plausibility of naturalism.