Читать книгу Introduction to Abnormal Child and Adolescent Psychology - Robert Weis - Страница 114

Although snake oil is not popular today, there is no shortage of pseudoscientific treatments that have limited evidence supporting their use. Wild claims and exaggerated promises are especially common in the field of abnormal child psychology. A quick Google search can reveal a plethora of unsubstantiated treatments for children’s problems. Like Stanley’s customers, today’s parents and teachers are often desperate for an effective remedy. Consequently, many “experts” offer therapies that have not been scientifically supported. At best, these therapies appear to work because children and parents have faith in them. At worst, these “treatments” cost families thousands of dollars, delay access to effective care, and risk considerable harm and suffering (Foxx & Mulick, 2016; Washburn et al., 2020).

US Library of Medicine

Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, and practices that people claim to be evidence based but are incompatible with the principles of scientific thinking. Pseudoscience is characterized by exaggerated and often contradictory claims that cannot be disproven, a reliance on anecdotes or personal beliefs rather than carefully collected evidence, and a reluctance to being evaluated by others.

Why do these unproven, pseudoscientific treatments continue to exist? The simple answer is that they capitalize on inherent biases that all humans have (Travers, Ayers, Simpson, & Crutchfield, 2017).

Confirmatory bias is a form of selective thinking in which our perceptions are influenced by our beliefs, thoughts, and expectations. We look for information that fits these expectations and overlook or minimize evidence to the contrary. If we expect snake oil to cure arthritis, we might imagine pain reduction or increased mobility after applying the ointment. Similarly, if we expect “sensory integration therapy” or “neurotherapy” to reduce children’s behavior problems, we might systematically look for improvements in children’s behavior following treatment (Kazdin, 2017).

Affective bias is a form of wishful thinking in which our perceptions are influenced by our desires, motives, and emotions. If we desperately want something to occur, we might actually see it. Laborers experiencing physical pain might want snake oil to relieve their suffering. Their strong desire causes them to magnify the benefits of the ointment. Similarly, the parents of children with severe autism might desperately want their child to communicate more effectively. They might turn to horse-assisted therapy, multivitamins, or special diets because they promise to help where other treatments have failed (Lilienfeld, 2019).

Science is a set of principles and procedures that are used to guard against these biases (Lilienfeld, 2019). Rather than rely on expectations, emotions, or casual observations, science relies on the careful, systematic collection of data to understand ourselves and the world around us. In a way, science is a form of arrogance control; it helps us to see the world as it is rather than the way we expect it or want it to be (Tavris & Aronson, 2015).

Five principles guide scientific thinking. Let’s look at each principle and an example of how it is important to the study of childhood disorders and their treatment.