Describe the contributions to society of the Cognitive and Psychodrama Approaches BY GANYMEDE Describe the contributions to society of the Cognitive and Psychodrama Approaches, and compare the two approaches in terms of their scientific status (18) The Cognitive Approach provides two contributions to society; Reliability of Eyewitness Testimonies and Cognitive Interviews. The cognac dative interview technique has been developed from a number of models of memory and forgetting from the cognitive approach, which is used to interview eyewitnesses of crimes.
The major two contributors are cue- pungency theory from Tilling (1 975), and reconstructive memory of Bartlett (1932). Cue-dependency theory can lead to the reconstruction Of crimes to improve the effectiveness of eyewitnesses, which is also supported by Barrette’s ideas of reconstructive memory who suggested that we interpret things to make them make sense to ourselves: this process, Bartlett suggested, caused us to omit certain details of the events and to focus too much on others. Tilling suggested that remembering is better when state (physical and emotional) and context (environmental) cues are just as they ere at the time of learning.
Thus, recreating the situations of the crime can lead to an improved recall from eyewitnesses. The cognitive interview exploits the psychological knowledge these theories contribute, as well as the research of studies such as Loft’s and Palmer (1 974), to prevent leading questions, and to provide witnesses with state and context cues (such as how they were feeling or what they were planning to do when the event happened), to improve remembering. Eyewitness testimony plays a large part in court judgments, and sometimes the entire outcome of the trial can upend solely on an eyewitness’ testimony.
This illustrates the importance of ensuring such a testimony is as reliable as possible. Studies such as Loft’s and Palmer (1974) and Warmer (2004) have shown that leading questions can affect the recall of eyewitnesses, suggesting unreliability and that they should not be relied on in courts. However, a counterargument from Yule and Catchall (1986) suggests that eyewitnesses are reliable, as they were not affected by leading questions (and this evidence is perhaps more convincing, given this was a naturalistic study).
Findings from these sorts of studies have led to the development of techniques such as the cognitive interview, as well as helping police to effectively get reliable information from eyewitnesses – for example, by not using leading questions. The Psychodrama approach also provides two contributions to society; dream analysis and psychoanalysis. Using his ideas from the psychodrama approach, Freud developed psychoanalysis as a therapy, which has been used since on a wide variety of patients for a number of disorders.
This causes some controversy, ND is a particular focus for the psychological debate of the power of the practitioner. The contribution to society is that it can be used to help treat certain mental health disorders, creating a healthier individual who will contribute to a more economically-productive society. Psychoanalysis has also led to or contributed towards the development of other major therapies, such as cognitive-behavioral therapy. Fraud’s development of dream analysis was based on the concept that our unconscious thoughts and desires were hidden in the latent content of our dreams.
This had to be retrieved room the actual dream content: the manifest content. The contribution from dream analysis is that once uncovered by the psychoanalyst the unconscious desires can become conscious and therefore be overcome, so that they lose power held over the individual. The psychodrama approach therefore considers dreams to have significant importance in treating mental, personality and anxiety disorders. This theory suggests that the brain is still active during sleep, although it does not receive any sensory information, and so it tries to make sense of a string of random thoughts.
The cognitive approach uses objective scientific methods such as experiments whereas the psychodrama approach is more subjective as dreams may be interpreted differently by different psychologists. The use of the case study in the psychodrama approach makes scientific rigor harder as there is little opportunity to compare results and produce a common standard. In contrast the cognitive approach tends to use experimental methods where data will be collected from many participants. The use of psychodrama therapies is now well established as a means of helping people though it still tends to lack referable evidence.
In contrast cognitive therapies have evidence from studies assessing their effectiveness. Understanding of the mind in the cognitive approach uses objectively collected evidence to support concepts such as SST & L TM whereas the psychodrama approach holds beliefs on the structure of the personality and mind that have not been supported by evidence. Research by cognitive psychologists produces quantitative data that can be analyses using statistical tests whereas the qualitative evidence produced in psychodrama research is not able to be tested in this way so caking scientific status.