Therapist responses to requests for disclosure of therapeutic records: An introductory study

This paper describes a questionnaire survey of therapists in the UK who have been subject to requests for disclosure of client records as part of a legal process. Therapist responses are outlined in terms of the perceived effect of such disclosure on the client, therapist and the therapeutic relationship. Negative effects included the experience of exposure of sensitive client material in an adversarial legal system, of powerful emotional responses by therapists, and a sense of feeling professionally de‐skilled in an unfamiliar and often challenging legal environment. Positive effects for the client included the achievement of valued outcomes such as compensation, and, for the therapist, the facilitation of support for the client in this process. These findings are discussed in terms of a contrast between therapist perceptions of consensual and contested disclosure. In the former, therapist and client are in agreement about the restorative value and outcome of disclosure. In contested disclosure, the process is experienced as disrupting therapeutic privacy, undermining professional self‐confidence and introducing an unwelcome element of critical re‐evaluation of client motives for undertaking therapy.     

On the witness stand:

Abstract

The family therapist is frequently called upon to testify as an expert witness. For many family therapists, the courtroom is an unfamiliar environment with different ground rules and basic assumptions. Testifying can be a difficult experience as the mental health professional faces different situational role demands than those encountered in usual therapeutic settings. If the family therapist can transfer to the court context the art of influencing interpersonal situations, the effectiveness of his/her testimony will be enhanced. This paper describes predictable legal behaviors and suggests to the family therapist strategic responses to improve skills as an expert witness.     

Testimony work with Bosnian refugees: living in legal limbo

Mental health professionals working with refugees are often confronted with traumatised survivors who are living in legal limbo. Complicated asylum procedures or provisions of only 'temporary' protection trigger existential fears, reexperiencing of trauma and feelings of hopelessness and deep despair and can actively contribute to further destabilise survivors. Mental health centres have to reconceptualise their provided services for these clients. The paper introduces a testimony project for traumatised Bosnian refugees in Frankfurt, Germany, who were living in legal limbo for many years. The testimony method was used in combination with supportive therapy and informed advocacy to try to reduce the survivors' feelings of humiliation and demoralisation which for them were at the centre of their survival. By giving testimony, survivors benefited psychologically and became better able to cope with the difficult present. Feelings of self-worth and dignity could be regained and a trusting relationship between the survivor and the listener facilitated the therapeutic process. The testimony material documented human rights abuses both in the country of origin and in exile, helped us to perform informed advocacy for this group and informed a larger public on the psychological costs of refugee resettlement policies.     

The admissibility of expert testimony regarding malingering and deception

This article discusses the legal admissibility of expert testimony and the ability of mental health professionals to detect malingering and deception among defendants. A legal analysis of the admissibility of expert testimony regarding malingering and deception in formal legal proceedings is presented. Some guidelines are provided to help mental health professionals and attorneys determine the admissibility of evidence they intend to introduce. Although psychologists and psychiatrists currently have a limited ability to identify accurately malingering and deception, expert testimony about the genuineness of a defendant's mental illness is likely to be held admissible for both practical and evidentiary reasons. In contrast, evidence about a witness' credibility is rarely admissible. In addition, psychologists are ethically obliged to recognize their limitations in making representations about their skills.     

A consideration of challenges to psychological assessment instruments used in forensic settings: Rorschach as exemplar

In this brief primer, we provide an outline of key issues that will help psychologists organize and prepare their expert testimony. These issues include the need to obtain essential sources of research, a review of the actual legal standards regarding admissibility of test data in expert testimony, the nature of the expert relative to the assessment instrument in expert testimony, the nature of legal versus scientific debate, and the examination of appropriate qualifications of expertise when offering legal testimony. In addition, we use a summary of information contained in several recent articles to address challenges directed against forensic psychological testing. We use the empirical literature on the Rorschach as an exemplar in discussing these issues, as the admissibility of the Rorschach in particular has been challenged, and the issues frequently focused on with the Rorschach are equally applicable to other psychological measures. In this article, we provide essential sources of Rorschach research regarding several empirical studies that summarize important information and directly address previous criticisms of the measure.     

Thinking and Working Relationally: Interviewing and Constructing Hypotheses to Create Compassionate Understanding

In the initial interviews of family therapy sessions, the therapist faces the challenge of obtaining and organizing the information that is most relevant toward understanding the essential concerns that families and couples bring to therapy. This article describes the process of clinical interviewing and case conceptualization used in training family therapists at the Ackerman Institute for the Family. This approach helps the therapist bring forward, and organize, specific information into relational hypotheses, or systemic‐relational conceptualizations, that allow both family members and the therapist to understand presenting problems within their relational contexts. While always provisional, relational hypotheses help anchor the therapist in a systemic‐relational frame and provide a conceptual through‐line to guide the ongoing work of the therapy. The process of interviewing and the construction of clear and complex conceptualizations of presenting problems are illustrated through case examples.     

Vivid persuasion in the courtroom

When witnesses at a trial offer testimony that is vivid, it may be more persuasive than the same testimony offered in a pallid manner. In this paper we elucidate three categories of variables (inferential, attentional/memorial, and affective) that are likely to mediate the effects of the vividness of testimony on jury judgments. These variables are then used to explain discrepant findings among mock juror experiments investigating vividness effects. Finally, we discuss the implications of vividness effects for the legal system.     

Social framework testimony in employment discrimination cases

The use of social framework testimony by social psychologists in employment discrimination cases is expanding. After reviewing the legal background of this type of testimony, we describe its content and discuss an important Title VII case of sex discrimination where the testimony played a critical role. We also distinguish social framework testimony from other types of expert testimony by psychologists.     

Anxiety,Learning, and Instruction (Book)

When witnesses at a trial offer testimony that is vivid, it may be more persuasive than the same testimony offered in a pallid manner. In this paper we elucidate three categories of variables (inferential, attentional/memorial, and affective) that are likely to mediate the effects of the vividness of testimony on jury judgments. These variables are then used to explain discrepant findings among mock juror experiments investigating vividness effects. Finally, we discuss the implications of vividness effects for the legal system.     

Solving the eyewitness problem

Faulty eyewitness testimony is a major source of wrongful convictions. Four solutions are examined to safeguard against mistaken testimony having undue impact: (1) to overturn any conviction based solely on the uncorroborated testimony of a single eyewitness, (2) to require that an attorney be present at any pretrial identification procedure, (3) to allow an expert to testify during the trial about factors of perception and memory that could affect a witness's accuracy, and (4) to have the judge deliver a cautionary instruction to the jury, admonishing them to carefully scrutinize eyewitness testimony, or to educate them about such testimony. Each alternative is discussed within the context of psychological research and legal cases.     

Eyewitness testimony: tracing the beliefs of Swedish legal professionals

This paper examines beliefs held by Swedish legal professionals about eyewitness testimony. In a survey including questions about 13 key issues of eyewitness testimony, three groups were investigated: police officers (n = 104), prosecutors (n = 158), and judges (n = 251). The response rate was 74%. Examples of findings are that the beliefs were in line with scientific findings concerning the weapon focus effect, but were not in line for simultaneous vs. sequential lineups. Between-group differences were found for seven items. Judges were much more sceptical than police officers about the reliability and completeness of children's testimonies. The groups seldom agreed about one answer alternative, and they reported not being up to date about scientific research on eyewitness testimony. The results suggest that some important research findings have reached those working on the field. However, they hold many wrongful beliefs about eyewitness testimony, beliefs that might compromise the accuracy of legal decisions.     

Death in the Family: Adapting a Family Systems Framework to the Grief Process

This paper presents a framework for adapting a family systems approach to the grief process. The framework places the bereaved and therapist in the larger context. The therapist builds a relationship around each family member's unique experience with death, and uses the grief timeline to facilitate timely systemic interventions. This perspective helps the therapist navigate pitfalls and remainstrategically positioned to address grief sensitively and effectively in psychotherapy.     

Three types of skills for effective forensic psychological assessments

This article examines three types of skills required for effective assessments in the forensic arena. Forensic psychology is the application of scientific psychology to the resolution of legal conflicts. The first skill is knowledge of the legal issues to be addressed. Examples of such issues are criminal responsibility, legal competencies, and linking mental states to legal issues in question. The second set of skills comprises those skills often required by the demands of the legal system--specifically, gathering complete information about the case at hand, striving for neutrality, reconstructing the past, and predicting the future. The last set of skills includes practical ones required during the process of litigation--that is, supporting the retaining attorney's overall strategy, addressing the testimony to the appropriate audience, and deferring to the prerogative of the fact finder.     

The Relationship of the Self of the Therapist to Therapy Process and Outcome: are Some Questions Better Left Unanswered?

Gurman (1987) has challenged the field of marital and family therapy to answer questions concerning the relationship of the therapist to outcome. An examination of conceptual and empirical literature regarding the relationship of the self of the therapist to process and outcome in marital and family therapy discloses that empirical evidence for such relationship is not persuasive. The author constructs a crucible for the field of marital and family therapy.     

Family members' perceptions of live observation/supervision: An exploratory study

This ex post facto survey examined 75 client family members' perceptions of live observation/supervision of family therapy at a university clinic. The results seem to reflect the subjects' general satisfaction with the process, although this general satisfaction did not significantly predict outcome on either family or therapist goal attainment scores. Family members whose therapists were female reported greater satisfaction with the process than those with male theapists, although no differences by therapist gender were found on either therapist or family goal attainment scale scores. Open-ended responses suggested that some family members were aware of the purposes of certain strategic team interventions. Implications of findings for the practice and research of live supervision and/or observation are discussed.The authors would like to acknowledge the aid of Judith Myers Avis, Marcia Brown Standridge, Cleveland Shields, Linda Stone Fish, and Joseph Wetchler in various aspects of this research project.     

Action models—learning by doing

The aim of this workshop was to demonstrate experientially how action models can be used: to highlight particular themes; to study ongoing interactional patterns of the family system; to allow patterns of behaviour and communication to emerge along with the consequences of that pattern; to focus on the process rather than the content; to find the strengths and resources of the family; and to offer the opportunity of practising new skills and to gain insight through experience. Action techniques are specific acts or actions the therapist engages in to implement a strategy. Action is a deliberate intervention which will provide material shared with the family and therapist. Five different experiential exercises were demonstrated for use in family therapy training or in family therapy sessions.     

Reasoning about scientific evidence: effects of juror gender and evidence quality on juror decisions in a hostile work environment case.

This study examined whether participants were sensitive to variations in the quality of an experiment discussed by an expert witness and whether they used heuristic cues when evaluating the expert evidence. In the context of a hostile work environment case, different versions of the expert testimony varied the presence of heuristic cues (i.e., whether the expert's research was generally accepted or ecologically valid) and evidence quality (i.e., the construct validity of the expert's research). Men who heard expert testimony were more likely to find that the plaintiff's workplace was hostile than were men who did not hear the expert testimony; expert testimony did not influence women's liability judgments. Heuristic cues influenced participant evaluations of the expert testimony validity, but evidence quality did not. Cross-examination did not increase juror sensitivity to evidence quality. Implications for science in the legal system are discussed.