We all know that social media can be a breeding ground for misinformation, conspiracy theories and pseudoscience. But how dangerous is it really? Well, according to a new book by two psychologists, the spread of pseudo-scientific mental health “therapies” is a real problem that needs to be addressed.
The threat of pseudoscience
The internet is full of various mental health apps, mood-enhancing supplements, energy therapies, and all sorts of cures, tinctures, and remedies that claim to improve the mind, body, and spirit. While some of them are harmless, or even a little strange, others are more worrying, according to psychologists Jonathan Stea and Stephen Hupp in their new book. Clinical Psychology Survey.
“This is the era of health misinformation,” note the authors in a press release sent to IFLScience. ” It’s everywhere. It is present in our social media feeds, promoted by celebrities and influencers, and permeates traditional news media. We are bombarded with advertisements promoting unsupported therapies and practices. Health misinformation has also spread in TV shows, movies and books. And increasingly, it is being embraced and promoted by prominent politicians. »
In psychotherapy, the situation is even more worrying.
“It is estimated that there are 600 brands of psychotherapy in circulation in the mental health world, and this number continues to grow. Many haven’t been tested, so we don’t know if they work; and many are pseudo-scientific and could be harmful,” Stea told IFLScience. “More broadly, many pseudo-scientific treatments are also promoted in the wellness industry under the guise of “alternative medicine.”
Common examples of this type of pseudo-scientific industry include naturopathy – a catch-all term that encompasses homeopathy, traditional Chinese medicine and acupuncture. There is also the energy medicine or energy healing market, Stea explained, which includes things like Reiki, the so-called therapeutic touchand “tapping” using Emotional Freedom Techniques (EFT).
“All of these are unequivocal examples of pseudoscience and remain scientifically implausible because their theoretical justifications are removed from the broader scientific literature. For example, energy medicine proposes that there is a kind of “human energy field” that can be manipulated and balanced to produce better health – but scientific evidence for such an energy field does not exist.
More than a theoretical question
This is of course a problem with real consequences.
“The assessment and treatment of mental health problems is a serious undertaking, the potential negative consequences of which can result in continued suffering and, in extreme cases, even death,” Stea emphasized.
“The late psychologist Scott O. Lilienfeld explains exactly why pseudoscience can be harmful: it can directly produce harm, it can indirectly tax the time and financial resources of evidence-based services, and it can further erode the scientific foundation and trust of the health professions that promote its use.
Additionally, if a person is not feeling well, they may self-diagnose with an illness that is not recognized by the medical community but is endorsed on social media. This could easily lead them to search for implausible or harmful treatments through their search engines.
A tool to avoid doubt
In this new book, Stea, Hupp and various other experts in the field have come together in a series of in-depth studies led by experts in the world of clinical psychology with the aim of demystifying and differentiating between pseudo-scientific and scientists.
The book covers various topics including crystal healing, detoxanimal-assisted therapies, hypnosis and energy medicine.
“There have been many important contributions to clinical psychology that have flourished over the past century, but there has been an equally powerful but harmful rise of pseudoscience,” Hupp explained in the release. “It’s great that more people are talking about mental health – but it needs to be linked to scientific evidence. »
The book also examines historical examples of popular pseudoscientific psychology in an effort to help readers learn to identify fallacious ideas. For example, they cover Primal Scream Therapy (PST) which was developed in the 1960s and designed with the belief that repressed childhood trauma could be excised through screams.
They also examine aspects of psychoanalytic therapy, such as dream interpretation, as well as the limitations of popular psychological tools such as Rorschach Inkblot tests, hypnotherapy, and Myers-Briggs personality tests.
Essentially, many of these pseudo-scientific practices rely on anecdotal evidence (and, increasingly, celebrity endorsement) rather than empirical research, which is often deployed in nonsensical language designed to appear scientific .
There is also a tendency to favor “confirmation over refutation”, Stea added, as well as “explanation of negative results”, “evasion of peer review”, “lack of self-correction” and a tendency to “apply affirmations to a laundry list of health problems.”
To counter the rise of pseudoscience, the book suggests stronger regulation of mental health services and higher quality scientific studies on the effectiveness of popular treatments. The authors support a system in which treatments can only be offered to the public if they meet strict criteria, including consistent results across a wide range of studies demonstrating functional outcomes and lasting effects.
But most importantly, the main goal is to help improve our ability to discern between legitimate scientific ideas and those that do not meet this standard.
“I would say the key takeaway is that we want to plant seeds to increase the likelihood that the general public will be able to differentiate between pseudoscientific and evidence-based approaches to clinical psychology; and provide a useful resource for clinicians to help them distinguish between science and pseudoscience in their practice,” concluded Stea.
“Our intention with this book is not to make sloppy assertions about what is and what is not pseudoscience. Rather, the intention is to educate about the nature of science versus pseudoscience and to help stimulate critical thinking about health decisions, particularly as they relate to mental health.”
