Psych 316 Name: ________________________ opic literature review Additional details Since the days of cure-all elixirs that promised miraculous healing powers, people have be en looking for immediate re- lief from their ailments. Who can blame them? Unfortu- nately, the desire to find a panacea often draws people to unreliable treatments. “People want quick results, and they want them yesterday,” says Jeffrey Lohr, Ph.D., professor of psychology at the Univer- sity of Arkansas. “You can’t fault people for wanting substan- tive relief, but you can fault the scientists who can’t see through a worthless treatment.” Lohr is on a crusade to help clinical scientists identify bogus therapies, part of his job as pr esident of the Science and Pseu- doscience Review Special Interest Group of the Association for Advancement of Behavior Thera py. Most recently, he co-wrote an article in the Clinical Ps ychology Review on Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessi ng (EMDR). This treatment boasts not only liberation from post-traumatic stress disorder but also recovery in a matter of weeks. The therapy is based on research showing that rapid eye movement helps process mem- ories. EMDR developers theorized that inducing rapid eye movements while a patient remembered a traumatic event would help the subject quickly process and come to grips with that memory. “EMDR is being touted as a breakthrough therapy,” Lohr says. “But as more and more objective testing is performed Gimmicks set pseudoscience apart from empirically sup- ported treatments. Scott Lilenfeld, Ph.D., founding editor of Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice, a new journal scheduled to appear in late 2001, has developed a keen eye for unsubstantiated treatments. “You can usually tell [what is pseudoscience] because there’s a lot of marketing aro und these treatments,” he says, “but there’s no controlled eviden ce. Support consists of almost all anecdotes and personal testimony.” Lilenfeld cites Rebirthing Th erapy, a controversial proce- dure that aims to heal painful memories by physically recreating the birthing process. The treatment proved lethal to 10-year-old Candace Newmaker in Colorado la st year. She suffocated as her body was pushed against pillows and wrapped in blankets to simulate the womb. “There’s no evidence whatsoev er that this works” says Lilenfeld. “We know for a fact that individuals cannot re- member anything before age 2.” By promoting solid research and questioning shaky—and potentially deadly—theories, Li lenfeld and Lohr hope to build a base for better research. “We ha ve to train good clinical scien- tists,” Lohr says. “And to do that, we need to know what bad clinical science is. “Eventually,” says Lohr, “pe ople can avail themselves of services based on th this is article ======================== question is...Choose a research article from a published journal. Write a review of the article. Include a brief bibliography of the author(s); state what the thesis is; how the author addressed or did not address the thesis statement; was the article easily understood; did the author state what (s)he intended to state; were the method(s) used appropriate for the research; what could have been done differently; what did you like/dislike about the article; what other research ideas could come from this article; and anything else you feel would add to the review of the article. Assessment will be on grammar, convention, punctuation, design, and clarity of the paper. The paper should flow smoothly with no run on sentences. It should not read like a cut and paste paper. NO NOT SUMMARIZE YOUR ARTICLE – You are to critique the article. Attach a copy of your article to your paper. Double space throughout the paper One inch margins Indent each paragraph .5” (normal tab) 12 pt. font: New Times Roman or Arial