As Psychologists we like to think that we ‘never judge a book by its cover’, however when it comes to human faces there are many assumptions that we do make. Professor Perrett argues that many of those assumptions are supported by evidence; faces do give us important clues as to personality, trustworthiness and health.

Professor Perrett gave his presentation in the impressive surroundings of The Dynamic Earth Centre in Edinburgh. Trustworthiness is something we tend to judge by behaviour rather than appearance, and indeed, early research by Michael Stirrat found that evidence gathered from static faces was unreliable. Further research, using economic games based on co-operation or exploitation, uncovered that slim faces were likely to be judged more trustworthy than more robust, wider faces. This correlates with evidence from ice hockey, that players with wide faces tended to spend more time in the penalty box. On the whole, it is male faces that are wider and this is linked to testosterone. Professor Perrett argued that human faces have evolved to become narrower as co-operation became more important for survival.

Research by Stephen, Coetzee and Law Smith found that perception of health is linked to colour cues in the skin. Of course, we know this already, all our grandmothers have told us we looked pale and therefore must be ill at some time or other. Women, use make-up to mimic good health; rouge on their cheeks and lipstick to mimic sexual attraction and arousal. Human skin colour is obviously linked to ethnicity and race, but there are some constants. Faces reflect health through skin tone. Some of the factors of apparent health are HLA immune genes, reproductive genes, body fat and lifestyle (sleep, exercise, diet). To investigate this experimentally, composite faces were made by blending several images to create average faces. These were then colour manipulated.  Participants were asked to change the colour of the faces, using the computer mouse to make them look healthier. In the UK, South Africa and Australia, participants added more red. Rankin, Coetzee even found this in African faces. When participants were asked to manipulate the blue/yellow axis, they added more yellow. So red/yellow faces are judged healthiest.

There are three factors that effect skin pigment; these are blood, melanin and carotenoids. Oxygenated blood is redder and this makes skin look healthier. Oxygenation of blood is improved by fitness training and influenced by reproductive hormones.  Therefore exercise can improve the appearance of the skin, making an individual both look and actually be healthier. Tanned faces reflect the presence of melanin, people do tend to look healthier with a bit of a tan, however, remember your sun screen! Carotenoids are found in food, especially fruit and vegetables. It turns out that eating too many carrots really can turn you orange! Carotenoids are yellow-red pigments that aid the immune system, in some animals they are used in ornamentation for sexual selection (feather colour etc.) When participants were fed ß-carotene over an 8 week period their skin tone did change. So eating more fruit and vegetables can not only make us healthier, but change our appearance for the better too. Skin really does reflect diet.

Of course, fashion and ethnicity are variables in preferences for faces, but the findings suggest that judgements of health remain constant. Perhaps the most important implication of this research is that it could be used to motivate people to live a healthier lifestyle. Telling young people that eating their five-a-day of fruit and vegetables will make them live longer, be less likely to contract certain illnesses in the future etc., is not effective, however, saying it will improve your physical appearance and therefore make you more attractive to perspective partners could well be.

Deb Gajic
Chair of the ATP

Further references: -
www.perceptionlab.com
www.faceresearch.org

This was a very successful conference and our thanks go to Morag Williamson and Sue Porter who worked so hard to organise the speakers, the venues and the social activities for the delegates.

The conference began on Friday at James Gillespie’s High School in Edinburgh. The facilities were excellent and we were treated to a series of stimulating presentations. Carol Craig, from the Centre for Confidence and Wellbeing, opened the day with a thought provoking session on “Positive Psychology” in which she highlighted the possible harmful effects of raising students’ self esteem in an indiscriminate way. This was followed by an interesting talk on Charles Darwin by Joe Cocker.

The morning session ended with a presentation by Geraldine Jones, from Edinburgh Napier University, on the evidence that neuroscience has provided about the profound changes that occur in the brains of young people and the implications of these to teaching and learning.

In the afternoon we were treated to what is always a great experience at conferences like this, a presentation by psychology students, in this case from Linlithgow Academy. They tend to “tell it how it is” and these two young people gave a very interesting talk that was thoroughly enjoyed by all.

Renate Schrempf, from Stuttgart, and Morag Williamson, from Edinburgh Napier University, reported on a piece of research they have been conducting for EFPTA. They are aiming to collect information to put together a profile of Psychology teaching across Europe, to include such things as the type of courses on offer, typical number of teaching hours and whether the subject is compulsory (as it is in Finland). It will also contain details of teacher training and the quality of resources available so it is hoped that this “data-base” will prove useful in the future as a means of sharing good practice.

The final session of the day was the EFPTA board meeting at which elections took place to appoint the new President and officers. Jari Honkala was thanked for his work as President over the last 5 years, during which he has worked hard to establish the EFPTA and get it registered in Finland as an official organisation.

On Friday evening 20 of us attended a Ceilidh in the Edinburgh Assembly Rooms and it was thoroughly enjoyed by all. The European delegates were particularly impressed by the men in kilts!

The events of Saturday took place in “Our Dynamic Earth”, opposite the new Scottish Parliament building, and this proved to be an excellent venue. The opening speaker was Dave Perrett from St Andrew’s University and he entertained us with his lecture on “Reading Faces”. His use of technology amazed the delegates and led to a healthy stream of questions. There were then two workshops which both focused on mental health issues. The first was about safeguarding the rights and welfare of mental health service users and the second was about the introduction of Scotland’s first “Mental Health First Aid Course”. Both workshops received very positive feedback.

After a splendid lunch we had another choice of workshops. In one Marie Morrison and Jonathan Firth described the changes to SQA NQ Psychology courses from 2009 and at the same time Michelle Clark from the Astley Ainslie Hospital (NHS Lothian) gave a presentation on “Applying Health Psychology” in which she described her involvement in the production of a “Heart Manual” for patients who have experienced heart disease. It was Michelle’s first presentation of that scale and she received very positive feedback from the floor.

A series of short items, including a wonderfully entertaining item by Morag Williamson on the life and work of Robbie Burns, took us up to the ATPS AGM and wine reception, and the EFPTA general meeting, at which we discussed the way forward and how we can promote further cross-Europe projects and activities.

Saturday evening was rounded off with an excellent Indian meal and some of the European delegates were able to stay long enough to experience some of Edinburgh’s many tourist attractions on Sunday before returning to the airport for the flight home.

Thanks go to Morag Williamson and Sue Porter (ATPS) and Joe Cocker and Udo Kittler (EFPTA) for organizing a memorable event.

Dorothy Coombs

Dear ATP members,

The last edition of our Newsletter was a bumper issue … because YOU sent in so many wonderful things! It’s your contributions which make the newsletter, and this time – well, exams looming, all sorts of pressure – there are far fewer contributions. What we have here is great, but I am beseeching you to look at what you have, because I know that we all have things we’ve done, produced, etc which we could share to inform, amuse, enthuse, or help other members. Both Deb and I reserve the right to edit contributions if we feel this is necessary for whatever reason, but this is a process not a threat.

We are an interesting lot! On the OCR site Ros Marshall (ros.marshall@franklin.ac.uk) wrote that this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rrc4I3-n-9Q&NR=1 was worth looking at, and I certainly found it so. She also cited Ken Cook’s http://bit.ly/C70kd, well worth watching as a How-To. So clear, and so different from many I’ve sat through (INSET, anyone?). In fact, the former clip would be a very worthwhile INSET session

And from the same institution, Laura Rudd (laura.rudd@franklin.ac.uk) is investigating the “Golden Hello for FE” for Psychology, and is having difficulty accessing information – if anyone can help please contact me or Laura – we hope to have news on this in the autumn Newsletter.

On a different tack, I am shocked, but no not surprised, that one of the major exam boards is charging £205 for its day course supporting teaching the new A2 spec. Exam Boards are businesses, and therefore need to make a profit – but also need clients. As clients teachers have the power, in most institutions, to choose the Board. So are ALL Boards charging such huge fees? And if they are, is there some sort of inter-Board agreement? Are ATP members concerned about this – use our blog on the website!

Please dear people send in contributions for the autumn edition of the Newsletter, maybe even some ideas for useful revision session or activities? And please, please do see the advert for submissions for the ATP Journal which we will relaunch during the winter. The ATP needs YOU!

Every good wish for a happy and successful summer,

Evie

BANGOR UNIVERSITY

Body and Brain: How is your body represented in your brain?

The School of Psychology at Bangor University offers students an opportunity to gain first-hand experience in world-class research. Students in the third year of their undergraduate degree work alongside research active psychologists to design experiments, test participants, analyse data, and write research reports with the potential for future publication. We would like to introduce you to some of the cutting-edge research currently being undertaken by our students this year. This article will focus on the fascinating world of the body schema to demonstrate how research is exploring the way that the body can be represented (and misrepresented) in the brain.

How does your brain understand your body? Look at your own hand and the hand of someone next to you – how does your brain know that one hand belongs to you and must be protected from harm or damage? Do you have an internal ‘sense’ of your body? And, more interestingly, could you ever make fundamental mistakes about your own body? Dr Fay Short and Dr Robert Ward are working with students at Bangor University to explore how the body is represented in the brain and how the brain can misrepresent the body.

The internal representation of the body in the brain is known as the body schema (Head & Holmes, 1911). Your body schema distinguishes between the parts that belong to your body and the rest of the world. It could be argued that two experiences contribute to this distinction between ‘body’ and ‘not body’: physical sensation from the body and physical control over the body. Early research exploring the cortex of the brain has revealed that the sensory cortex is responsible for creating the experience of physical sensation from the body and the motor cortex is responsible for granting control over the body (Penfield & Rasmussen, 1950). Modern research, however, has found that the body schema is not merely a result of sensation and control. Our body schema is actually a complex concept influenced by a wide range of factors including sensation, control, proprioception, vision, emotion, and memory. In fact, the body schema is so complex that it is vulnerable to many different types of error.

Your brain can misrepresent your body by extending the schema to include things that are not a part of your actual body. Amputee patients will often report an awareness of their missing limb and, perhaps even more astonishingly, some stroke patients have reported an awareness of additional body parts, such as an extra arm (Khaten et al, 2009) or even an extra head (Turnbull et al, in prep)! These phantom limbs and supernumerary phantom limbs demonstrate how the body schema can include body parts that no longer exist or have never existed. Research has also found that the body schema can even include external objects that are not real body parts at all. The rubber hand illusion shows how synchronous stroking of a hidden real hand and a visible rubber hand can result in the weird sensation that the rubber object is the real hand (Botvinick & Cohen, 1998). All of these findings suggest that our body schema is quite flexible and current research at Bangor University is exploring how this flexibility could help people to improve their interactions with external objects. We are using virtual reality techniques to encourage the body schema to incorporate tools and equipment; for example, could we help sportsmen incorporate their equipment into their body schema to improve performance? In terms of the brain, a tennis player could quite literally have a racket that is an extension of the self!

Your brain can also misrepresent your body by modifying the schema to appear physically unattractive or abnormal. Patients diagnosed with body dysmorphic disorder will fixate on specific parts of their body with the belief that the part is abnormal or unattractive. This disorder is currently classed as a mental illness, but it is possible that there may be underlying neurological causes for this misrepresentation of the body. Current research at Bangor University has highlighted the importance of control over the body (Short & Ward, 2009), so perhaps the experience of poor control over the body (particularly during the ‘clumsy’ teenage years of physical development) contributes to these negative feelings. Perhaps the misrepresentation of the body schema can be corrected by giving the patient an opportunity to experience successful and graceful control over his or her own body? We are using virtual reality techniques to investigate reactions to ‘ugly’ hands and explore how we could manipulate feelings towards these limbs by providing the participant with control over their movement. We are hopeful that our research in this area may further our understanding of this devastating illness.

This article has provided a brief overview of the exciting research currently being conducted in the virtual reality lab by Dr Fay Short and Dr Robert Ward at Bangor University. We hope that you have found this article interesting, and please do not hesitate to contact us at f.short@bangor.ac.uk if you would like any further information.

Working at the University of Sheffield as a developmental research assistant for the past two years has permitted me to work alongside a variety of people, all of whom have been at different stages of their academic careers.

My time spent at the developmental lab has provided me with a rich insight into both the difficulties faced by prospective students wanting to enter academic research as well as those faced by those already well established in their field.

Before highlighting what I believe to be the main difficulties faced, it is important to describe what I have observed to be the typical pathway leading to a career in research psychology.

The first step for any aspiring research psychologist is to get as much work experience under their belt as possible that is related to their chosen research area. This can be attained prior to the completion of a degree at college/sixth form, during their university studies or even after they have graduated. Once a degree has been attained, a student can then either apply for a masters course relevant to their field of interest or apply for a PhD straight away. Although it is not considered prerequisite to hold a masters degree prior to the completion of a PhD, it often helps bridge the transition. Finally, once armed with a PhD, the next step for a newly qualified researcher is to seek out post-doctorate research positions in order to gain more vital research experience and thus enter the world of academia.

In academia, experience is considered vital. And I believe it is this gaining of experience that can be one of the main difficulties faced by aspiring researchers. Quite often students or graduates face a ‘catch 22’ situation whilst seeking to enhance their skills and experiences. In short, they need experience to get experience and this can cause some serious problems. Consider for a second that in order to get a place on a masters course you need experience, but also that many research assistant vacancies ask for applicants qualified with a masters degree.

Another difficulty faced by individuals at any stage of their research careers is that of funding. Whether you’re a fresh-faced graduate or a high-flying professor, funding for research underpins everything.  On the whole, the number of research related vacancies advertised to graduate students is determined by the success of grant applications made by researchers. As well as this, many researchers are themselves dependent on securing this funding in order to pay their own wages and as a result many individuals in a research team will be on fixed term contracts. Acquiring funding has always been tough and even fully fledged researchers with many publications to their name can be unsuccessful. You will not be surprised therefore to learn that the situation has been worsened significantly by the current economic downturn in the UK and across Europe.

A final difficulty linked very much to the issue of funding is that of job stability. In research, individuals are often required to be highly flexible and be prepared to move to different areas of the country or even different countries in order to keep their research going. Although the situation faced by those working in research can be argued to be disheartening, especially when considered in line with the issues raised here, it should be noted that many academics overcome these difficulties and have highly successful careers. However, in my experience, the successful individuals are those who possess a passion for their research area and the zeal to persist in the face of the difficulties. It is also important to note that, in addition to research psychology, all areas of applied Psychology place an emphasis on experience and so the issue of facing a ‘catch 22’ is a common one.

For students wanting to achieve a career in Psychology, acknowledging the limitations of all fields of psychology will allow them to make a more informed decision, but remember that passion and hard work have the power to overcome any obstacle.

Neil Goodare
Development Research Assistant at The University of Sheffield

The objectives of this article are two-fold, with both relating to the title.

The first objective is to provide information about CBT and the evaluation of it as a form of therapy that can be used as an evaluation as a therapeutic approach within AS and A2 lessons.

The second objective is still about information, but goes much further than the classroom and relates to what is happening within counselling and psychotherapy world, in the UK right at this present time. It relates to changes, in fact huge changes that affect service users and providers within the counselling and psychotherapy world. Changes that have stirred up comments and controversy.

Actually I am going to start with the second objective as this will cast light on, and inform, the first. It will make clearer some of the criticisms that are levelled against CBT and the clinical application of it within therapy. Up to this point in time in the UK ‘counsellor’ and psychotherapist’ and even ‘psychologist’ have not been protected titles. That is anybody could use the term even with the least amount of training if any at all. Get out the brass plate, shine it up, and fix it up outside the door and wait for the customers to come along. Although that was possible there has been organisational self-regulation in place. For example, this has been true within the therapeutic world with organisations such as the BACP and UKCP. These organisations regulate their member-practitioners by requiring certain amounts of training and the adherence to codes of ethics and practice. If these are breached in any way then the practitioner could lose their membership. This process was developed over a number of years and has taken into consideration a wide and disparate range of theoretical ways of working. A difficult task in view of the different interpretation of the therapeutic relationship and process which in turn will lead to differing goals and aims. Given that, in the opinion of many, this self-regulation has been effective and has worked at keeping the profession ethical.

Registration
However, this is changing. In a white paper published in February 2007, called Trust Assurance and Safety, the Department of Health stated the Government’s intention to regulate psychologists, counsellors and psychotherapists as a matter of priority. ‘Psychologist’, ‘Counsellor’ and ‘Psychotherapist’ will become protected titles which will mean that anyone using those titles as a description of themselves will have to be registered (Department of Health, 2007). The 1 July saw the start of this with the opening of a register for Psychologists. Registration is in the hands of the HPC (Health Professions Council). A minimum standard will be required of the practitioner before registration is permitted (as far as counselling and psychotherapy are concerned, in the opinion of some, it will require lower levels than at present within BACP and UKCP accredited membership). These changes have been welcomed by many therapists. It now gives a base-line for practice and a protection for the public. If complaints are made they can be made to a central source. If upheld and the matter is serious enough then the therapist will lose their practitioner certificate and will not be able to legally practice using the protected title of ‘counsellor’ or ‘psychotherapist’.

However not all have welcomed these changes and regulation. On 5 April this year there was a conference in London organised by therapists who are objectors to the proposed regulation. The conference was entitled ’Against State Regulation’. Subsequent to this, the ‘Alliance for Counselling and Psychotherapy’ issued a statement outlining their objections. Look closely here because implicit within the statement is criticism of CBT, which of course ties in with my first objective and the title of this workshop/seminar.

Among other points, the Alliance states:
‘Although many counsellors and psychotherapists work in medical settings, their work is not a branch of medicine nor an activity ancillary to medicine. Most forms of therapy do not focus exclusively on the relief of symptoms, but emphasise creating and exploring a relationship. If there is a goal it is a general improvement in the quality of life (so that client satisfaction, rather than the improvement of an isolated symptom, is the appropriate measure of effectiveness). Regulation through the HPC implies medical values and criteria which are in many ways antithetical to psychotherapy and counselling.

‘Many practitioners see their work as more of an art than a science: a series of skilled improvisations in a relational context, where each client offers unique issues and demands unique responses. Such an activity cannot be captured by a list of competences . Yet regulation by civil servants, who themselves know nothing of the field they are regulating, demand an objective version of practice, even if this falsifies its nature.

‘The initiative to regulate psychotherapy and counselling is itself a symptom of our tick-box society: of an obsession with safety, a compulsion to monitor every activity, an illusory belief that everything can be brought under control. In many ways psychotherapy and counselling inherently expose this illusion: they support us in tolerating uncertainty, difference, risk, and the unknown.’

The point has to be made here that all these views and the content of the Alliance statement are the views of the Alliance and is contrary to the stated view and official line of The British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy (Aldridge, 2009).

A speaker at the London conference who is a well-respected therapist and writer, Brian Thorne, in his paper ‘A collision of Worlds’ asserts that statutory regulation will do little or nothing to protect clients, but will sap therapists of their creativity. He argues that therapy is not a medical-associated activity that concerns itself with symptom reduction treatment plans and empirically validated procedures (all these terms are familiar to and used in CBT). But, Thorne says, therapy is about relationship, depth and about extraordinary intimacy. So that a person who is suffering can find hope, alleviation from pain, a sense of meaning and a way forward. He states: ‘To subject therapists to statutory regulation has about the same incongruity as putting ballet dancers under the direction of a regimental sergeant major’ (Thorne, 2009).

To continue with a final point in the Alliance for Counselling and psychotherapy statement:
‘NICE clinical guidelines and IAPT privileges a single form of ‘evidence based’ therapy [referring no doubt here to CBT] over all other modalities and promise to reduce access to long term, relationally oriented therapy; to reduce client choice; to medicalise the field; and to rigidify training’

Above there is reference to NICE clinical guidelines and IAPT. Two collections of initials that need explaining. NICE is an acronym for the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. NICE produces guidance in three areas of health:
• public health - guidance on the promotion of good health and the prevention of ill health for those working in the NHS, local authorities and the wider public and voluntary sector
• health technologies – guidance on the use of new and existing medicines, treatments and procedures within the NHS
• clinical practice – guidance on the appropriate treatment and care of people with specific diseases and conditions within the NHS.

This organisation provides recommendations based on research for best clinical practice within the NHS. CBT, because of its abundance of evidence-based research, is strongly favoured as a therapy preference for many common mental health problems.

Improving Access to Psychological Therapies
Now to the other acronym IAPT. This stands for Improving Access to Psychological Therapies. In 2006 the London School of Economics published a report advising that psychological therapy should be made more widely available to everybody in the UK. This has come to be known as the Layard report, named after its principal author Lord Richard Layard. It has led to the government funded initiative IAPT programme. The proposed focus of this is to provide increased therapeutic access and availability to help adults with common mental health problems such as depression and anxiety. This initiative will total a massive £300 million and represents the largest programme ever to support the provision of psychological therapies in Britain. Layard’s economic analysis is based on the assumption that the cost of this will come from the benefits of savings of reducing absenteeism, getting people back to work and reduced use of NHS resources (Layard et al. 2007).  Incidentally, its critics say that the analysis is predicated on what they call in the May 2009 edition of the ‘Psychologist ‘a naive view of mental health problems, essentially a simplistic illness model and of an overly optimistic assessment of how effective psychological treatments can be’ (Marzillier and Hall 2009).

So now put all his together. Regulation which means developing a way of measuring competences; NICE guidelines which look to the paradigm of measurable evidence-based research; and the NHS IAPT programme strongly influenced by NICE recommendations.

You can see that CBT rides high in being in a favourable position as contrasted to practitioners from other approaches who may see their positions and way of working as being under threat. The British Association for Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapies (BABCP) is the leading organisation for Cognitive Behavioural Therapy in the UK.

Also of note is that recently, that is within this last year, BABCP has withdrawn its affiliation to the United Kingdom Council for Psychotherapies (UKCP). In letters to members it was stated that ‘autonomy and independence of the BABCP is particularly important at this time’ as they ‘are now actively involved in key developments in relation to the Government’s agendas on HPC regulation and New Ways of Working for Psychotherapists, as well as their central involvement in the implementation and expansion of the IAPT programme’. According to this letter, ‘the UKCP has not only failed to support CBT but has been highly critical of it, particularly in regard to IAPT’.

All the foregoing has its effect on the therapeutic community here in the UK. An increasing number of jobs are requiring CBT training and expertise. Primary care counsellors in various PCTs have been required to re-train in CBT or have lost their jobs working within GP practices.

CBT – against and for
It is no wonder that therapists from other approaches have reacted in protest to what they see as a monopolising of practice and a marginalisation of alternative therapeutic methods and philosophies.  There have been many articles published of late objecting to what has been seen to be the exclusivity of CBT, the emphasis on the medical model (Sanders, 2007), and the questioning of its evidence base (Fairfax, 2008). A book recently published by PCCS Books puts the arguments forward written by opponents and supporters of CBT. It is edited by Richard House and Del Loewenthal. The title of the book is ‘Against and For CBT: towards a constructive dialogue’.

The major areas of criticism raised are: The alleged superficiality of the approach with the focus only on accessible cognitions and the ignoring of deeper motives and desires Philosophical critiques of the assumptions underpinning CBT such as technicism and rationality. The mechanistic determinist view of the human condition. The focus on a medicalised model that plays down meaning and purpose in clients lives. The strong cultural bias with the taking to task of Layard-type thinking with its socio-economic flaws. The collusion with psychiatric power structures and being used by the Government as a way of upholding a political and social economic system. The reliance on flawed research paradigms for support. (House and Loewenthal, 2008).

Last month there was a debate held at the Royal Geographic Society in London organised by Intelligence Squared. The subject and proposal of the debate was ‘Psychotherapy does more harm than good’. A subject that has echoes of the Eysenck study (Eysenck, 1952). In a pre-debate Radio 4 interview on 17 June, two of the debaters were interviewed. They were Jeffery Masson, an eminent opponent of therapy and author of ‘Against Therapy’, and Richard Layard. In the discussion that followed Masson referred to CBT as more of a marketing device than a therapy. He went on to say that: “CBT says that you are looking at the world in the wrong way. But who is to say that they are looking at the world in the right way? It is a political difference. Why should their way be better than your way? You will not be harmed by talking to a friend; you may be harmed by talking to a therapist.” (Incidentally, the result of the debate was 30% For, and 63% Against the motion ‘Psychotherapy does more harm than good).

As a practising CBT therapist I, of course, do not completely agree with such a statement and look at things from a different perspective. CBT is a well-researched method of helping people overcome difficulties that they are experiencing in their lives. It has helped people to return to a functioning and fulfilling way of life. It is evidenced-based, that means it has been developed and continues to be developed on what works and what has had long term beneficial effects. However, I do think it is important and healthy to consider the voiced criticisms. There can be a danger in the conveyor belt-type application if practising a rigid manualised CBT. This can dehumanise and disempower individuals (Merrett and Easton, 2008). Not to be underestimated is the importance of the therapeutic relationship and the empathic interaction of the therapist (Thwaites and Bennett-Levy, 2007). Cognitive Behaviour Therapy is an umbrella term that encompasses a growingly varied way of working therapeutically. REBT, ACT (Acceptance and Commitment Therapy), Schema-Based CBT, Compassion focussed therapy and Mindfulness-Based CBT are a just a few that come under that umbrella. The popularity and growth in the diverse angles of focus give evidence of the applicability and livingness of this as a therapy. All these varying ways of applying the principles and philosophy that underpins the approach offer in themselves a powerful response and reply to many of the criticisms that have been made.

Stuart is an accredited CBT therapist /supervisor. He is an accredited member of BACP and a UKCP registered psychotherapist. He is Features Editor of the Journal of the International Stress Management Association UK and a member of the Faculty of Healthcare counsellors and psychotherapists and works in private practice and in primary care. He also teaches psychology.
Contact: stuartrose@psychealth.co.uk

References

Aldridge, S. (2009), Making your mind up, Therapy Today, Vol.20, No. 4, p18-20.

Department of Health. (2007). Trust, Assurance and Safety – the Regulation of Health Professionals in the 21st Century. London:  Department of Health.

Eysenck, H.J.(1952), ‘The effects of psychotherapy: an evaluation’. Journal of Consulting Psychology, Vol.16, p319-324.

Fairfax, H. (2008), ‘CBT or not CBT is that really the question?  Reconsidering the evidence’. BPS Counselling Psychology Review, Vol.23, No.8, p27-35.

House, R., Loewenthal, D. (2008) ‘Against and for CBT’, PCCS Books.

Layard, R., Clark, D., Knapp, M., Mayraz, G. (2007), ‘Cost-benefit analysis of psychological therapy’. National Institute Economic Review, 202, p90-98.

Marzillier, J., Hall, J. (2009), ‘The challenge of the Layard initiative’, The Psychologist, Vol.11, No.5, p406-408.

Merrett, C., Easton, S. (2008), ‘The Cognitive Behavioural Approach: CBT’s Big Brother’. BPS Counselling Psychology Review, Vol.23, No.1, p21-31.

Sanders, P. (2007), ‘Decoupling psychological therapies from the medical model’. Healthcare Counselling and Psychotherapy Journal, Vol.7, No.4.

Thorne, B. (2009) ‘A collision of worlds’. Therapy Today, Vol.20, No.4, p22-25.

Thwaites, R., Bennett-Levy, J. (2007) ‘Conceptualising Empathy in Cognitive Behaviour Therapy: Making the Implicit Explicit’. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, Vol.35, p591-612.

WELCOME BACK TO THE START OF A NEW ACADEMIC YEAR. I hope you all had an enjoyable and restful summer break. Autumn term is without a doubt the toughest and most challenging of the year.

However, I do always start the year enthusiastically and really enjoy getting to know my new students. I’m actively looking forward to the challenges of teaching a new A2 specification. I’ve found PsychExchange invaluable for sourcing new and inspirational resources and ideas – www.psychexchange.co.uk

Those of you who were able to attend the Annual ATP Conference at Exeter will agree that the conference was one of the best ever – Phil Banyard did a marvellous job. The programme was very full, relevant and inspiring. Once my hangover wore off, I felt I had gained an awful lot from the conference. Once again I was gratified to see what a committed, professional, enthusiastic, caring and friendly bunch psychology teachers are. For those of you who have never attended an ATP Conference, you are missing a treat; it really is the best value CPD on offer for Psychology teachers. Next year’s conference will be at Brunel University – go to www.atpconference.org.uk for more details.

It’s all change here at the ATP, I’m sure you will have noticed that the new look newsletter is fabulous and will go from strength to strength under the editorship of Laura Rudd. Laura has some great ideas of what she would like to do in the future. Please support her by letting her know your thoughts and of course, submitting articles and items. The website has also undergone a comprehensive overhaul. The new webmasters are Mark Holah and Jamie Davies, who are also the brains behind the wonderful PsychExchange. If you haven’t already, please have a look and register at www.theatp.org – the invitation code is ‘atpmember’. We welcome constructive feedback and ideas for the website. Whilst you are there please check that your personal details are up to date, you will be able to amend them online, and any queries please contact the membership secretary, Wendy Wood at membership@theatp.org

If you know of any Members who are not receiving their ATP newsletter, it is probably because we haven’t got an up-to-date contact address for them, again please ask them to contact Wendy.  We really need Members’ e-mail addresses as this is a much easier and efficient way of contacting them, so either register on the website or e-mail Wendy direct.

After the success of the annual conference, many Members were asking for one-day events throughout the year. We are currently planning an NQT/New to teaching Psychology day, details of which will be posted on the website soon. We would also like to offer Regional events if there is sufficient demand. If you are interested in becoming part of a regional group please contact Jeff Standen –standen.jeff@gmail.com – or join the discussion on the website forums.

Please don’t hesitate to contact me with any ideas or comments about how the ATP can best serve its Members. I wish you all a productive term and don’t forget the work/life balance!

Deb Gajic
d.gajic@sky.com

IT HAS BEEN A YEAR FOR OLD ENDINGS AND NEW BEGINNINGS. We have seen the end of coursework for A-levels and the arrival of new specifications across the board. Is change always a good thing? Not always. Is it in this case? I think so.

It is also a new beginning for the magazine and for myself. I have taken over as Editor from the wonderful Evie Bentley and hope that this, my first edition, won’t disappoint. I would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone who has helped me in my new position as Editor; those of you know who you are. Thank you, your unbending belief has been an inspiration.

I would also like to take this occasion to wish you all well and the very best of good luck with your new beginnings as we once again brave the storm and battle our way forward into that great and often unpredictable world of education. For those of you just starting, bear with it. For those of you who are dab hands, keep up the hard work. I leave you with this poem by Sheenagh Pugh which a dear friend read to me recently, I hope you may appreciate it as much as I do.

Sometimes things don’t go, after all from bad to worse
Some years, muscadel faces down frost: green thrives:
the crops don’t fail
Sometimes a man aims high, and all goes well
A people sometimes will step back from war
Elect an honest man: decide they care enough,
that they can’t leave some stranger poor
Some men become what they were born for
Sometimes our best efforts do not go amiss;
sometimes we do as we meant to
The sun will sometimes melt a field of sorrow
That seemed hard frozen: may it happen for you…

Laura Rudd
laura.rudd@franklin.ac.uk

By Mark Souter

My 150th birthday party was a bit spoilt when my name was taken in vain.

After an understandably quiet period following WWII, scientific racism developed a higher profile from the end of the last centur onward. A vivid example of this comes from the writings of J. Philippe Rushton. He is a significant figure in this field; Herrnstien and Murray repeatedly cite Rushton in support of their own ethnocentric conclusions in ‘The Bell Curve’. What makes Rushton more topical is that he claims he is the heir of Darwin and criticism of him is criticism of evolutionary science. I have come across this author in students’ writings, with some making a good stab at evaluation whilst others have repeated it uncritically.

Whilst part of me does not want to give it further airing, the greater urge is to use it as a vehicle for tackling scientific racism head on. Just as Rushton is candid about his own project fitting his own outlook, I am content to say I read his work in the context of an  existing viewpoint. This includes the view that it is part of my job as a teacher to (a) give all views appropriate consideration (in my Critical Thinking scheme I have a discussion about the merits of the view that the moon landing was a hoax), and (b) to apply scientific and critical analysis to a wide range of material.

My first point is that Rushton is a psychologist who uses concepts from evolutionary biology as a central plank of his assertion that there are ‘races’ within humans. An interdisciplinary approach must have merit, since confirmation of a theory across different intellectual domains should confer greater validity. However, the applications of such concepts still have to be valid in themselves. I will take Rushton’s central concept of ‘r/K selection theory’ and show how he plays fast and loose with both evidence and application of this impressive sounding concept. I will also point out that it is far from being a widely accepted theory within evolutionary biology.

Another plank of Rushton’s approach is that there is an academic conspiracy to discourage research into ‘politically incorrect’ theories, including those of Darwin. To this end he has been head of the Pioneer Fund since 2002; this historically funded eugenics research and more later funded work on intelligence and inheritance such as the ‘Bell Curve theory’. Since 2000 it has given the bulk of its funding to the ‘Charles Darwin Research Institute’, which is Rushton’s own vehicle for promoting his ideas. In this respect another aim for me is to show that this is not an area in which there are ‘neutral’ views. I am not rejecting Rushton here because I find his views unpalatable. I acknowledge that I do, but this is not an evaluative category I am applying.

That said, since Rushton claims the support of Darwin, I’ll do so too. Darwin was celebrated at this year’s ATP conference and quite rightly so. Darwin considered the implications of his work in relation to contemporary issues of ‘race’, such as slavery and imperialism. He has recently been (selectively) presented as the harbinger of Nazism by US creationists. This is clearly false. Darwin’s view was that humans had the capacity of compassion over and above biological imperatives. To the extent that he thought there were variations in human populations,
and that advances in medicine let ‘the weak’ survive, Darwin clearly indicated his reservations about a eugenicist approach: ‘The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature.’ (Darwin et al 1882)

This undermines Rushton’s claims for the support of Darwin in applyingb natural selection (as it does Rushton’s predecessors in the eugenics movement). Rushton also applies the work of a more recent, and less revered, evolutionary biologist – Eric Pianka – who came up with r/K selection theory. Pianka’s theory attempts to explain natural selection as working thought a trade-off between quantity and quality of offspring in response to environmental pressure. Rushton applies this to support his claim that ‘blacks’ ‘evolved’ in an environment of plenty, whilst Europeans had to survive in more difficult conditions. Rushton, in a less academic context, explained the evolutionary pressure in response to more or less restricted resources as ‘a trade off, [between] more brains or more penis. You can’t have everything.’ This is a reference to his claim – presented in a more straight-faced way in his book – the ‘blacks’ have bigger genitals. His source references to this are rather modest: the writings of early explorers and an anonymous Victorian treatise, attributed to a French military doctor. Even accepting the dubious data supporting this key claim point a further link in the chain of his theory is that the size of genitalia is an ‘r’ selected characteristic. This is based on another unsupported assumption: large genitalia correspond to sexualpromiscuity and high reproductive rates. Neither has any supporting evidence. A similar point can be made in relation to many of Rushton’s application, of r/K selection theory: he applies it to suit his assumptions about the ranking ‘races’ in an inconsistent manner.

The whole idea of racial hierarchies has the appeal of a simple story that excuses European domination, and in doing so it echoes historic examples of scientific racism. Rushton performs a sleight of hand. He takes sources from a wide range, even giving references for some of them. He then applies such ideas to fit a pre-existing conclusion. For example, r/K selection theory sounds plausible, and readers might assume a citation to a peer review means it is accepted in that discipline. Even if that source is checked a psychologist might not be familiar with the debate in that area. Pianka’s theory has been shown to be very questionable in a number of experiments. Furthermore, Rushton is very ‘flexible’ in his application of this theory. When it comes to characteristics of ‘blacks’ he invariably interprets these as ‘r’ type, whilst ‘whites 2’ and ‘Orientals’ are always ‘K’. It is worth noting that in the paper that Pianka cited for his own evidence, the author concluded that temperate climates produce more stable environments than tropical ones, so ‘r’ (high reproduction) strategies are selected for, whilst ‘K’ (high nurturing) strategies are advantageous – a relationship that Rushton reverses to fit his own ideas!

At the same time Rushton is denying a conclusion which Darwin reached, and which has been supported by biologists ever since:  there are no ‘races’ amongst humans. This is the core assumption of his theory, but he starts from an assertion that there are ‘races’, and then moves on to applying his own version of r/K selection theory.  His evidence for ‘races’ starts from an ‘everyone knows’ basis, citing the performance of top athletes in particular sports. In doing so he conflates small phenotype differences (which can have consistent effects when performance is measured in hundredths of seconds) with genotypic differences. Space precludes me from covering the rich literature on this topic, but a good summary is contained in Fish (2002) p71. For the purposes of this article I have set aside all of this literature: Rushton dismisses it, without talking about it directly. For him it is part of a conspiracy of wishful thinkers who lack his ‘courage’ in investigating his ‘scientific’ analysis. What I hope I’ve shown is that this is just one more flawed assumption in a flawed approach.

Rushton’s work is wide ranging and any full evaluation needs to be too. I am not pretending that I have dealt with all of his evidence and analysis, though I hope I’ve dealt with two core assumptions. If there is one further point to be made it is psychologists should be well prepared if they are going to apply evolutionary concepts in the field of psychology.

Sources and further reading

Cernovsky, Z.Z. (1995). ‘On the similarities of American blacks and whites: A reply to J.P. Rushton’. Journal of Black Studies 25: 672-679. www.euvolution.com/euvolution/blackwhite.html

Darwin, Zimmer, and Waal (abridged, editor Carl Zimmer, 2007) ‘The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex Plume’.

Barkan, E (1993). ‘The retreat of scientific racism: changing concepts of race in Britain and the United States between the world wars’.

Richards, G (1997). ‘Race, racism, and psychology: towards a reflexive history Routledge, 1997’.

Fish J, (2001) ‘Race and Intelligence: Separating Science From Myth’. Lawrence Erlbaum’.

‘Myths and Realities: African Americans and the Measurement of Human Abilities’.

Sullivan, N (2003). ‘A Critical Introduction to Queer Theory.’ Edinburgh University Press, 2003.

Smedley and Smedley (2005). ‘Race as Biology Is Fiction, Racism as a Social Problem Is Real: Anthropological and Historical Perspectives on the Social Construction of Race’.  www.apa.org/journals/releases/amp60116.pdf

The Journal of Negro Education Vol. 64, No.3, Summer, 1995.

Howe, M (1997). ‘IQ in question: the truth about intelligence’. SAGE.

There has been a backlash again in the progress made in regard to the use of language in the 1970s and 1980s. That progress was made when it was acknowledged that the images and words used in text books (and elsewhere) helped to shape people’s view of their world. Subsequent approaches, including courses of study, designed to take it into account, were criticised in the 1990s as ‘political correctness’, alluding to the use of this term by the political left. Ironically the political left had got there first: Jessica Mitford had mocked politically clichéd language in the 1950s* e.g. President Bush I ‘Remarks at the University of Michigan Commencement Ceremony in Ann Arbor, May 4, 1991’

* Jessica Mitford (1956) ‘Lifeitselfmanship or How to Become a Precisely-Because Man’.

We were pleased to be asked to deliver a couple of breakout events at the ATP Conference this year through which we were able to gather lots of constructive criticism about PsychExchange. On the whole teachers were very kind with their comments.

Around 80 psychology teachers attended our two discussions at the ATP Conference and provided us with some great feedback which we have been able to use to improve the site. Following on from the conference, during the latter part of August, we decided to conduct an online survey of the usefulness of PsychExchange via e-mail.

This article is therefore a summary of the feedback we have received and the resulting changes that we have been able to make to PsychExchange.  It was a relief for us that the feedback from the conference and the survey was very good regarding the usefulness of the site. For example, of the approximately 200 people who completed the online survey (by the time this article was written) over half found the site ‘very useful’. The qualitative responses were also very encouraging.

How useful have you found psychexchange?

The survey revealed that teachers are finding the downloading of resources, videos, ideas and the weekly e-mail the most useful features. From the qualitative responses we discovered that the forums, private messaging and bookmarking are rated as less useful because many teachers are not aware of how to use these features. Several teachers have requested a ‘dummies guide’ to using PsychExchange which we have developed and is now available on PsychExchange.   We were encouraged with the responses to the question on the survey which asked how likely users would be to share a resource in the future, with over 90% of respondents saying they would be likely to share in the future.

How likely are you to share a resource in the future?

An interesting finding from the survey was that even though the majority of teachers state that they are comfortable leaving comments on the site, most teachers do not. This is backed up by our user data on the site showing that 1,352 files have been uploaded compared to 1,000 comments made. The main reason given for not commenting on resources is simply forgetting to do so.  The most common criticism of the site, not surprisingly, is searching the site for the appropriate resources. In particular, finding a good resource and then not being able to relocate the same file again.  We have made a number of improvements to the site and most of these are to the profile section of the site which should help users  manage downloads more effectively. Every user now has a unique profile which can be found, once you are logged on, by clicking on the  ‘My Profile’ link in the top right-hand section of the site.

The profile page can be used rather like a Facebook-type page and importantly it keeps a record of resources, ideas etc that you have both uploaded and downloaded. For example, in your profile if you click on ‘My Bookmarks’ this will show you all of the recent files that you have
downloaded which you might want to either use again or comment on.  A great feature of the profile section is that it will save all of the resources that you bookmark, so you can use them again in the future. When you are browsing resources and you find a resource that you find useful, you can now bookmark it by clicking on the link next to the resource detail called ‘Bookmark’. You can now go into your profile, click on ‘My Bookmarks’, and you’ll find that the resource has been saved there.

There is a more detailed analysis of the survey on PsychExchange.   More importantly thanks to all of those teachers who have taken time to upload their resources, ideas and comments and have given us feedback to improve PsychExchange.

Mark Holah & Jamie Davies