Maple:

Again, the review raises valid questions about what is fact and what is not and might be instead fiction.

Steve Hassan often doesn't present any meaningful factual basis and/or research to support many of his claims.

Mann offers a thought-provoking and meaningful critique, which points this out.

The joke about "Hassanology" seems to underscore that a serious author of nonfiction should not expect readers to accpept claims based upon faith. If Hassan takes such a position then his book becomes more like dogma and is similar to religion than anything resembling science.

Is Hassan a preacher or a teacher? As I recall he has a degree in counseling education.

You agree that Hassan has poorly presented some thing in his book. But if Steve Hassan wants to properly present things in a book he should support his writings with meaningful research and/or citations of relevant research, footnotes and include proper attribution. This is one of Dr. Mann's most serious points within her review.

Quote
yasmin
This is an interesting review.It does not seem particularly fair though.
Several of her points don't make a lot of sense. Printing a bibliography on the internet is not the same as "plagarism" .
While I am also sceptical of the cult/pre cult personality theory, it does not seem to have been an idea unique to Mr Hassan. And asking for scientific proof of this theory is perhaps similar to asking for proof of Freuds id/ego/superego.
An intervention whether for drugs/alcohol or any other is reason is of course fairly manipulative.It may be that Dr Mann feels no inteventions should ever be done.Fair enough.
And the point she raises about getting informed consent from the client is an important ethical issue.
Is deception ever appropriate in therapy, and if so, under what circumstances?
Counseling family members though, on how to relate to a family member who is not participating in the counseling sessions seems fairly typical of many types of counselors.
My understanding is that the APA is neutral on the whole idea of coercive influence in NRMs; in this case it seems that arguing over the definition of an "expert therapist" in this area is a little pointless.
To be honest, just Mo, but a lot of new theorists seem to write up their various approaches as if they have the one and only possible solution. Jungians don't normally acknowledge the benefits of family systems therapy in their write ups; family systems types don't talk about how great narrative therapy is. Certainly, it is good to acknowledge the existance of multiple possible approaches, but Mr Hassan is hardly the first therapist with a new theory to have written a book discussing its advantages.

Perhaps some clarification on the definition of plagiarism is needed, as it is commonly defined in the scholarly community. Any use of information in a formal publication such as a book, journal article or student paper that was not ones own creation without citing the source is indeed defined as plagiarism and hence, Cathleen Mann's pointing out that Hassan failed to properly cite his sources is quite fair. Even his citations on the internet were not directly linked to what he wrote in the text of his book, many of which were borrowed ideas, so unless the reader is familiar with the sources (as Dr. Mann is, as am I) the reader has no way of knowing which ideas are original to Steve Hassan and which were the ideas of others. I have seen graduate students expelled for plagiarism for much less serious violations than that. It is important in the interest of honesty and integrity, to properly attribute what one writes about and Steve Hassan didn't do that.

As for scientific proof, it is quite valid to ask for the proof of the existence of concepts such as Freud's Id, Ego and Superego. Yasmin seems to imply that it is not, but the fact is that Freud's ideas are largely discredited and passe in the community of scientific mental health practice precisely because their lack of an evidentiary basis was pointed out.

And no, Yasmin, interventions are not "manipulative" in the sense Dr. Mann writes about. The word has different definitions and you appear to be engaging in the fallacy of equivocation on the word, "manipulative" -- changing its definition to another meaning and then twisting the argument to say all interventions are manipulative. Ironically, even Hassan argued against this idea that everything is manipulation. Manipulative, in the sense cult experts use the word means making or attempting to make changes in a person without their full knowledge and informed consent. Ethical mental health professionals provide full informed consent and hence, are not "manipulative" as per the definition that is being used here. You attempt to reduce this to the absurdity that Dr. Mann is against all interventions when obviously she is not -- this seems dishonest and disingenuous to me on your part, Yasmin.

You are quite correct that many counselors do not engage in practice that has a basis in evidence and this is a very sad and troubling commentary on the profession, not something that seems to make it okay to do, as you imply. There is a growing movement of people who are saying enough is enough, and calling certain mental health professionals out on this irresponsible behavior. It only shows that the profession is in dire need of reform to prevent the kind of malpractice and people who are walking away from therapy worse than when they came in. This is a topic that has received a great deal of attention within the mental health profession recently and as consumers are becoming more aware, more complaints are being filed and if state boards neglect to take action, in some cases, malpractice cases have been brought to civil court. As R. Chris Barden,PhD (Psychology), JD has pointed out, if the mental health profession neglects to properly monitor itself, the law ultimately will.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/09/2012 07:34PM by MonicaPignotti.

Quote
yasmin
Re your comment about anecdotes; yes and no. Of course in a book such as this , it is likely that Mr Hassan is going to report positive rather than negative testemonies. Unless he has a 100% success rate, then he has obviously left out some relevant but less successful cases.

At the same time though, if a fact is reported accurately, then it remains a fact, regardless of who is reporting it.

If Mr Hassans BITE model was effective with some people ( if effectiveness is defined as leaving a group) then that remains a fact.
There are lots of questions though.

The point you appear to be missing, Yasmin, is that there is no way to know whether anecdotes are accurately reported and if the intervention was successful, whether it was due to factors unique to the intervention or other factors having nothing to do with the intervention per se. There are many reasons why it is unwise to uncritically accept such anecdotes as "fact". The only way to properly test Hassan's model would be through systematic study, not anecdotes and testimonials, that are unverifiable and not independently monitored by those who have no vested interest in the outcome. So no, there are no facts here established, not in the scientific sense. If someone does leave a cult after an intervention, it could have been due to many reasons having nothing to do with the BITE model. After all, people such as Rick Ross and others have successfully helped many people to leave cults without using the BITE model and there is no evidence that Hassan's methods or any better, as he claims.

Quote
Maple
I've been thinking about this review. She is an academic who is involved in academic research. Hassan is a practitioner who has formulated an approach based on his practice and case studies. It's apples and oranges.

She criticizes him for not being an expert witness. That doesn't hold water with me and what I know of the field. Generally, you want an academic, PhD or MD to be an expert witness, not an Master's level practitioner who does no academic research. I discount much of what she says based on that.

That is an incorrect assumption. Dr. Mann is licensed and does practice. And no, it is not "apples and oranges" because these days, in the interest of clients, there is a push to encourage bridging the gap between science and practice, not emphasizing it, as you appear to be doing.

As a practitioner, he would not be expected to be an expert witness in a court of law, but Steve Hassan is attempting to do much more than be a practitioner. He has proposed a theory he is making grandiose, unsupported claims about and hence, he does have a burden of proof, if he wants to be seen as credible.

The point you seem to be missing is that Steve Hassan is making repeated claims that he is a "cult expert". If he were just modestly practicing as a Masters level therapist, that would be one thing, but when he is making the kinds of grandiose claims of superiority he constantly makes, he has a burden of proof and it is valid to challenge him on this point.

Masters level practitioners do not need to do research, but as public servants, ethical practitioners should employ interventions that are based on research evidence and if they do not, they ethically need to inform their clients that they are engaging in an experimental treatment, as opposed to making the kinds of unsupported claims Hassan makes, accompanied by fees that are far higher than what a Masters level practitioner would normally charge.

Re Maple not being sure whether Hassan uses NLP today, the point is that the descriptions of techniques he describes in his current book make it obvious to anyone who is familiar with NLP, that he is using their techniques, but not citing them and not calling it NLP. This does lead readers unfamiliar with NLP to not be sure whether he uses NLP, as Maple states and that is precisely the reason why proper citations are needed, which Hassan does not provide. If he had been honest, he would have had to cite NLP material because he described their representational systems and techniques that are well known to by NLP techniques, such as Visual Kinesthetic Dissociation. Of course, then Steve Hassan would have to face the music and explain why he is continuing to use what are essentially NLP concepts and techniques. Some justify this by saying that Bandler & Grinder borrowed from others when the created NLP, but Hassan did not even cite those others and the fact remains that the particular synthesis of these ideas described by Hassan is readily recognizable as NLP.

He also recommended people use techniques he says he was subjected to when recruited into the Moonies, to help get people out of cults. This, too is very troubling, as a double standard. Apparently Hassan thinks it is okay when a "cult expert" does it, but not okay when done by a group he considers to be a cult, as if the end justifies the means.

Hi ,
Actually I agree with some of Maples points.
I always prefer reviews with a fair and professional tone; this one did come across ( to me) as a little bit personal. While some of Dr Manns criticisms seem to be based on the idea that the book would not be a professional academic book ( true, though as Maple pointed out the book was aimed at a different audience) however, truthfully the tone of her review ( IMO) would not have looked great in an academic magazine either.
The issues of cost or potentially non disclosed fees is important, as per Mr Rosses comment. Also the issue of informed consent is relevant.
Re the use of "NLP"; my understanding is that NLP was developed by studying techniques already in use in counseling , used by mainstream experts such as Virginia Satir.
The fact that these techniques were co opted by NLP and used by people who were not trained counselors, and who were in some cases very unethical, does not mean that the techniques are now "owned" by and can only be used by NLP practioners.They were legit counseling techniques prior to their "discovery" by NLP practioners, and remain so if practiced in accordance with counseling/therapy ethics.
Dr Pignotti; from reading your websites etc in the past, the impression I have developed is that you do not agree with the idea of coercive persuasion used in cults, and that you don't believe this is a field that should exist at all. I may be wrong here, and have misinterpreted what you said.Would you refer people to Dr Mann or any other counselor or therapist who works in this field?

Dr Pignotti,
Re your other point ; there are certainly many approaches in counseling that work well. ( And ironically, often the theoretical underpinning of the various theories contradict each other.)

At least one study ( I'll ty to find it if you are interested) suggested that the type of therepeutic approach used mattered much less that the rapport between the counselor and the client, in producing effective change.

Psychology deals with constructs and most therapeutic approaches are not well investigated. The study of psychology is in its infancy; just Mo here, but often the effectiveness of the techniques may not be at all related to the accuracy of the ideas unperpinning them. You seem to advocate for only evidence based approaches. In that case, you are probably pretty much stuck with cognitve behavioral therapy.


Cognitive Behavioral therapy is pretty well researched compared to many other approachs, but Mr Hassans BITE model is certainly not unique in joining the many other theories that have not yet been scientifically investigated for effectiveness. it may be that you feel that no one should practice any theory without scientific proof. Informed consent re the effectivenss of the theory is important; at the moment the psychological profession does not ban fruedian or other theoretical approaches. As you have a PHD, what therapeutic approaches would you recommend?


Currently as far as I know, there is no scientific evidence of any theory being particularly effective with regard to coercive persuasion.

So indicating that he is practicing without the scientific evidence that shows his theory works better than others in dealing with issues of coercive persausion , would appear to be a criticism that could apply to everybody else also in that field.

Should research be done on his theory and compare it that of other practioners with different theories? Definitely.


Perhaps in the future , developing rapport will become far more useful than theories.

It does surprise me, though,given your focus on scientific proof , that you chose to persue studies in an area that is currently fairly intuitive.
Perhaps you are engaged in research to add more scientific information to this area?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/10/2012 12:28AM by yasmin.

Quote
yasmin
Dr Pignotti,
Re your other point ; there are certainly many approaches in counseling that work well. ( And ironically, often the theoretical underpinning of the various theories contradict each other.)

At least one study ( I'll ty to find it if you are interested) suggested that the type of therepeutic approach used mattered much less that the rapport between the counselor and the client, in producing effective change.

No need to. I am already very familiar with the literature and have heard that argument many times, used has been used, ad nauseum, as an excuse for people who deliver therapies that lack evidence. First, there are major flaws in the studies upon which that particular assertion is based, but even if it were correct, the studies included were only therapies considered "bona fide", not fringe therapies like NLP.

Also note that Hassan is claiming superiority of his approach over other approaches and claiming he is superior and more effective because of his expertise. The premise that it is the relationship that is important would completely wipe out his claims because then the person might as well go talk to any mental health professional with good relationship skills or for that matter, anyone with empathy. No need for Hassan's strategic interaction approach if that is the case.

"Psychology deals with constructs and most therapeutic approaches are not well investigated. The study of psychology is in its infancy; just Mo here, but often the effectiveness of the techniques may not be at all related to the accuracy of the ideas unperpinning them. You seem to advocate for only evidence based approaches. In that case, you are probably pretty much stuck with cognitve behavioral therapy."

Again, saying psychology is in its "infancy" is no excuse to make grandiose claims such as the one Hassan has making. There are effective therapies out there and while yes, many of them are CBT-based, what's wrong with that? None of this is an excuse for therapists making grandiose claims that there therapy is superior to others and charge excessive fees for it, when it lacks evidence. In fact, just the opposite ought to be the case.

"Cognitive Behavioral therapy is pretty well researched compared to many other approachs, but Mr Hassans BITE model is certainly not unique in joining the many other theories that have not yet been scientifically investigated for effectiveness. it may be that you feel that no one should practice any theory without scientific proof. "

Please go back and reread the point I have been repeatedly making that you seem to keep repeatedly missing. It is the UNSUPPORTED CLAIMS Steven Hassan is making. If something lacks scientific evidence for efficacy he needs to knock of his grandiose claims of superiority and let his clients know that his approach is EXPERIMENTAL and stop charging fees that are far higher than the going rate Masters level therapists would normally charge.

"Informed consent re the effectivenss of the theory is important; at the moment the psychological profession does not ban fruedian or other theoretical approaches. As you have a PHD, what therapeutic approaches would you recommend?"

What the psychotherapy profession "bans" is not the point. As I mentioned, high percentage of people are practicing approaches that lack evidence and many are making unsupported claims about these approaches. What I recommend is irrelevant to this discussion. The point is that therapy consumers need to demand accurate informed consent be provided about the state of evidence that exists or does not exist to support the efficacy of a particular type of therapy and if there is no evidence, knock off the claims of superiority.

"Currently as far as I know, there is no scientific evidence of any theory being particularly effective with regard to coercive persuasion."

Again, you are continuing to miss my point. That being the case, Hassan needs to stop making claims he is superior to others.

"So indicating that he is practicing without the scientific evidence that shows his theory works better than others in dealing with issues of coercive persausion , would appear to be a criticism that could apply to everybody else also in that field."

Everybody else in the field does not make the grandiose CLAIMS Hassan makes. Hassan has repeatedly claimed his approach is superior to all others and hence, he has the burden to prove that is the case. If he cannot, he should stop claiming this and let his clients know that there is no evidence that his approach works better than anyone else's.

If Hassan were humbly offering help to others without the grandiose claims and letting people know what he does is just as experimental as what anyone else does and charge what Masters level therapists normally charge and use interventions that have research support where possible, that would be a different situation.

Very interesting.
Certainly those professionals helping people get out of cults need to be totally upfront about their FEES.
Just like a psychcologist or other mental health professional.
You know the fees right up front.

And those fees need to be in line with the standard for the field in the area.
Or if the fees are inflated to $500 an hour because someone is a "celebrity" that is pretty ludicrous, as the fee structure needs to be sliding based on income. You don't mortgage your house to pay for a psychologist, hopefully they can adjust their fee to your income level. Most ethical professionals do that.


I know a lot about NLP, but am not familar with Hassan's book, and how he is using NLP in his book or work.
But if he is not openly citing it, you can be sure because the NLP guys, Bandler and Grinder, would send an attorney after him to get some money out of him.
So like many New Agers use NLP tech, but just change the words around a bit, so they don't get sued by the NLP guys.

Basically, the idea is they are going to DO things TO YOU without your awareness of what they are doing to you...for your own good. Insert laugh there.
The NLPers think they can reach into your mind and fix it using their Tech. But they can't.
NLP is basically a giant fraud.

neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) [www.skepdic.com]

Hi All, interesting discussion.

Anticult; I agree that fee schedules should be readily available. I did a quick run around the web. Dr Mann has a couple of sites on the first two pages googling her name which provide an office contact number but don't provide a fee schedule. I checked Mr Hassans website; he apparently has another practitioner working with him: fees for her or the educational consultant are listed as an initial discount rate of $100 for an hour with Mr Hassan charging the same amount for 40 minutes. Dr Pignotti does not appear to do any therapeutic work as far as I can tell. I'm guessing that both Dr Mann and Mr Hassan provide further information regarding additional fees ( for Mr Hassan) and intial fees (for Dr Mann) when they are contacted. Dr Mann does mention that she accepts some insurance. (Many insurance companies prefer to only compensate PHD's).
What should the going rate be for cult type interventions; I am not sure.

Re Mr Hassan's religion; his website says he is Jewish, not New Age. Not sure if you were actually suggesting he had New Age beliefs or not.

Dr Pignotti; I think our conversation would be a little easier if you actually listened to what I say, instead of appearing to replay arguments you have previously had with other people.

Yes ,logically if the development of rapport ( or therapeutic alliance) is more important than the theoretical approach, then that applies to Mr Hassan too. ( That in fact was part of my point..)

You mention that the study you have read about rapport only applies to "bonafide" therapies. What makes a" bonafide" therapy? We have agreed that the majority of therapeutic approaches sadly have little science behind them.

If you have issues with a study you have read though, that is fine. I've read plenty of peer reviewed studies that were poorly designed. But given your interest in scientific facts, it would be far more helpful if you identify what you find specifically to be wrong with a particular study. You never know, I may even agree!

You asked what is wrong with cognitive behavioral therapy? Nothing. In fact we both agreed it is one of the most researched modalities. But even it does not have a 100% sucess rate, so would not therefore be necessarily appropriate to use in every situation. And there are plenty of respected therapists out there who use other modalities.

By the way, I have no particular vested interest in Mr Hassan. I responded to comments in a review that seemed to be holding him to a different standard than is expected of most other therapeutic modalities. And I have not yet read his book. But I have to wonder; does he actually declare that his approach is superior to all others? Do you have a direct quote?

On his website, as far as I could see, he merely seems to indicate that his approach is preferable to utilizing someone who is not trained as a therapist; most therapists would probably agree.