Re: differential mechanism

**The reason we assert that the onus is on demonstrating the unique elements of EMDR contribute to treatment outcome is that the opposite position (that we skeptics have to prove the unique elements don't contribute to outcome) is logically impossible: you cannot prove the null hypothesis. The logic of scientific investigation is to assume that two things are the same, and then determine if there is adequate evidence to reject this null hypothesis and thereby indirectly advance the alternative position that things are not the same.**

I totally concur with that statement. Accordingly, I have some reseravations about studies that appear to have set out to prove the null hypothesis, or at least report null findings without actually using appropriate sample sizes.

However, IMO the same holds true for studies setting out to show that EMDR and exposure rely on the same effect.

The suggestion to independantly vary exposure time and thus violating the standard EMDR protocol is a research approach that in some ways is caught within the behavioural paradigm. Bob Stickgold's posting may allow for a possible resolution of this problem.

IMO, part of the reason why EMDR has generated such controversy, apart from the admittedly hokey looking eye movements, is that it is a treatment that is not based on any existing psychological theory.

Shapiro (1995) essentially uses computer science and cognitive neuroscience metaphors to explain the effects of EMDR. EMDR has been caught in a recent paradigm shift within psychology (also see Journal of Clinical Psychology, Volume 57, Issue 9, 2001: Special Issue: In Search of a Paradigm for Clinical Psychology: Neuroscience versus Behaviorism).

EMDR, in some ways has been a treatment in search of a theory. Using some recent findings within the field of neuroscience may aid in generating useful research hypotheses about a possible underlying mechanism with regard to EMDR as well as other treatments, thus potentially leading to an improved understanding of human behaviour.

Replies:

Re: differential mechanism, by Cahill, 11/07/01 Re: differential mechanism, by Göran Högberg Sweden, 11/23/01

| Behavior OnLine Home Page | Disclaimer |

Copyright © 1996-2004 Behavior OnLine, Inc. All rights reserved.