Introduction to Abnormal Child and Adolescent Psychology. Robert Weis
Читать онлайн книгу.
short alleles: 0.61;
2 One short, one long allele: 0.46;
3 Two long alleles: 0.30.
Back to Figure
The details of the model from inside to outside, are as follows,
The innermost circle shows a child blowing bubbles.
The next circle shows the microsystem, comprising of parents, siblings, school, peer, daycare, and church.
The next circle shows the mesosystem, comprising of parents’ involvement with school, and family’s involvement with church.
The next circle shows the exosystem, comprising of family SES, healthcare, school board, mass media, and neighborhood safety.
The outermost circle shows the macrosystem, comprising of cultural values, family beliefs, and ethnicity.
A left pointing arrow shows the chronosystem and change over time.
3 Research Methods With Children and Families
©iStockphoto.com/Liderina
Learning Objectives
After reading this chapter, you should be able to do the following:
3.1 Use five principles of scientific thinking to differentiate scientific research from pseudoscience.
3.2 Identify and describe the four goals of scientific research with children and adolescents: description, prediction, explanation, and replication.Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of various research designs commonly used with children, such as correlational, experimental, and quasi-experimental studies.
3.3 Explain the importance of ethics when conducting research with children and families in need.
3.1 Science Vs. Pseudoscience
Today, the term “snake oil” is used to describe any dubious medical treatment that has limited evidence supporting its effectiveness (Image 3.1). In the 19th century, however, snake oil was widely used by immigrants working to build a railroad system across the United States. For centuries, snake oil was used in traditional Chinese medicine as a topical ointment to treat arthritis, joint pain, and mild skin irritation. It contained the fat of Chinese water snakes, which is rich in omega-3 fatty acids and is known to reduce inflammation. Chinese laborers would apply the ointment after a hard day of work to soothe their aching muscles (Anderson, 2016).
Businessman Clark Stanley began marketing snake oil to American workers. Because Chinese water snakes do not live in the United States, he used the fat of rattlesnakes to make his concoction. Stanley claimed that he learned about snake oil from Hopi Indians. He traveled the country demonstrating the healing powers of his elixir. At the 1893 Chicago World’s Fair he applied his tonic to several onlookers who marveled at its effects.
There were two problems with Stanley’s snake oil. First, American rattlesnakes contain much less omega-3 fatty acids than Chinese water snakes. Second, Stanley’s ointment did not contain any snake oil at all. An analysis showed that it consisted of mineral oil, beef fat, chili pepper, turpentine, and camphor. The US government fined Stanley $20 for “misbranding” his product. Stanley never disputed the charges.
How Is Scientific Thinking Different From Pseudoscience?
Science: A Way to Reduce Bias
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.
Principle 1: Falsifiability
Falsifiability is the most important principle of scientific thinking. It is the capacity for an idea to be proven wrong. When a psychologist tries to explain the cause of a disorder or the effectiveness of a treatment, her explanation must be falsifiable—that is, there must be a way to gather evidence to show that it is incorrect. If a hypothesis cannot be falsified, then it cannot be disproven or rejected based on evidence (Lilienfeld, 2018).
Case Study: Scientific Reasoning and Falsifiability
Helping Hands
Fourteen-year-old Aislinn Wendrow had severe autism, could not speak, and had limited self-care skills. Her parents, Julian and Tali, tried dozens of treatments to improve Aislinn’s functioning, but none had much effect. Then, in middle school, Aislinn tried facilitated communication and it changed her life. Suddenly, Aislinn was