Although science is commonly viewed as providing the knowledge base for the practice of mental health, the realization of the mental health professional as a scientist-practitioner has been problematic. Questions can be raised regarding the extent to which psychotherapy is data-generating or even data-based. In an attempt to assess the degree to which research was cited by practitioners in justifying their initial treatment decisions, 416 representatively sampled intake evaluation reports from a community mental health center that requires a "rationale/justification for preliminary mode and type of therapy" were examined. Practitioners, in general, failed to provide rationales for their treatment decisions, and research was seldom cited when rationales were provided.
This study utilized a reinterpretation of the priming hypothesis to understand the effect of fantasy violence on children's moral reasoning. A posttest‐only control group experimental design was used. A total of 121 children were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 conditions. Children saw 1 of 2 nearly identical versions of a fantasy violence program with the ending manipulated. In the clip, the main character either used physical violence to solve a conflict or the violence was edited out and the main character appeared to walk away from the conflict. A third group of children was in the no‐treatment control condition. Subsequently, children were administered the Moral Interpretations of Interpersonal Violence (MIIV) scale, which assesses children's judgments of violent dilemmas and their reasoning about those judgments from a developmental perspective. It was found that children who saw the violent ending judged subsequent violent stories as more correct and utilized less advanced moral reasoning strategies when explaining their answers. Neither age nor empathy mediated the main effect. The findings suggest that the activation of mental models regarding violence is an automatic process that occurs somewhat independently of other potential mediators.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.