Thigpen and Cleckley can be used as part of the Psychodynamic approach and Individual Differences.
Thigpen and Cleckley:
The aim of this article was to provide an account of the psychotherapeutic treatment of a 25-year-old woman who was referred to Thigpen and Cleckley because of 'severe and blinding headaches'.
The psychiatrists used a case study method. This consisted of interviews with the patient and her family, hypnosis, observation, EEG tests and a number of psychometric and projective tests including, memory tests, ink blot tests and intelligence tests.
During interviews several emotional difficulties were revealed.
Several days after a visit to the therapists, a letter from Eve White appeared at the therapists' office. The letter concerned her therapy and was written in her usual handwriting, but at the bottom of the page there was a paragraph that looked like a child had written it.
On her next visit Eve White denied sending the letter, though she recalled having begun one, which she never finished and thought she had destroyed.
During a conversation Eve White, as if in pain suddenly put both hands to her head. After a tense moment of silence her hands dropped, and the therapist observed a quick, reckless smile? and in a bright voice she said: 'Hi there, Doc'. She revealed that she was Eve Black.
Over the next 14 months, during a series of interviews totalling approximately 100 hours.
The therapists found that although Eve Black could sometimes 'pop out' unexpectedly, she could only be 'called out' by the therapists when Eve White was under hypnosis. After more sessions they found that hypnosis was no longer needed for obtaining the changes.
The therapists believed that Eve Black had enjoyed an independent life since Eve's early childhood and when she was 'out' Eve White was not aware of what was happening. In contrast, when Eve Black was not out she was aware of what was happening.
Eve Black told the therapists about a number of incidents in childhood where she engaged in acts of mischief or disobedience, which Eve White was unaware of and was punished for. Some of these incidents were later backed up in interviews with her parents and her husband.
Eve Black denied marriage to the man, who she despised, and denied any relationship to Eve White's daughter except that of an unconcerned bystander.
Psychometric (i.e. IQ and memory tests) and Projective tests (i.e. Rorschach and drawings of human figures) were also used:
IQ test results: Eve White obtained an IQ of 110 and Eve Black 104.
Memory Test results: Eve White had a superior memory function than Eve Black
Rorschach test (ink blot test) and drawings of human figures results:
The profile of Eve Black was far healthier than Eve White. Eve Black though regressive.
Eve White was repressive showing obsessive-compulsive traits, rigidity and an inability to deal with her hostility.
After Jane appeared the three personalities were given electroencephalogram tests (EEG). It was possible to make a clear distinction between the readings of Eve Black and the other two personalities. Although it was not possible make a clear distinction between Eve White and Jane's EEG.
It was decided that Jane was the person most likely to bring a solution to the troubled mind, and that her growing dominance over the other personalities to be an appropriate resolution.
Thigpen and Cleckley were convinced that they had witnessed an example of multiple personality. Although Thigpen and Cleckley do not point to the cause of MPD, the received wisdom is that MPD is usually a response to child abuse - a way for the individual to protect him or herself.
Freud can be used as part of the Psychodynamic approach Developmental approach and Individual Differences.
Freud: The case of Little Hans
The aim of the study was to report the findings of the treatment of a five-year-old boy for his phobia of horses.
Freud used a case study method to investigate Little Hans phobia. However the case study was actually carried out by the boy's father who was a friend and supporter of Freud. Freud probably only met the boy once. The father reported to Freud via letters and Freud gave directions as how to deal with the situation based on his interpretations of the father's reports.The first reports of Hans are when he was 3 years old.
The first reports of Hans are when he was 3 years old when he developed an active interest in his 'widdler' (penis), and also those of other people. For example on one occasion he asked 'Mummy, have you got a widdler too'?
When he was about three years and six months old his mother told him not to touch his widdler or else she would call the doctor to come and cut it off.
Around the same time, Hans' mother gave birth to his sister Hanna, and Hans expressed jealousy towards her though this disappeared after a few months.
When Hans was almost 5, Hans' father wrote to Freud explaining his concerns about Hans. He described the main problem as follows: 'He is afraid a horse will bite him in the street'
Hans' anxieties and phobia continued and he was afraid to go out of the house because of his phobia of horses. Hans told his father of a dream/fantasy which his father summarised as follows: 'In the night there was a big giraffe in the room and a crumpled one: and the big one called out because I took the crumpled one away from it. Then it stopped calling out: and I sat down on top of the crumpled one?'
Freud and the father interpreted the dream/fantasy as being a reworking of the morning exchanges in the parental bed. Hans enjoyed getting into his parents bed in a morning but his father often objected (the big giraffe calling out because he had taken the crumpled giraffe - mother - away). Both Freud and the father believed that the long neck of the giraffe was a symbol for the large adult penis.
When Hans was taken to see Freud, he was asked about the horses he had a phobia of. Hans noted that he didn't like horses with black bits around the mouth. Freud believed that the horse was a symbol for his father, and the black bits were a moustache. After the interview, the father recorded an exchange with Hans where the boy said 'Daddy don't trot away from me!'. This was due to Hans having castration anxiety.
Hans' anxiety began to diffuse as he found a resolution. Firstly, Hans had described a fantasy where he was married to his mother and was playing with his own children. In this fantasy he had promoted his father to the role of grandfather. In the second fantasy, he described how a plumber came and first removed his bottom and widdler and then gave him another one of each, but larger.
At age 19 the not so Little Hans appeared at Freud?s consulting room having read his case history. Hans could not remember the discussions with his father. therefore supporting his theory of the unconscious mind.
In particular, the case study provided support for his theory of Oedipus Complex in which the young boy develops an intense sexual love for his mother and because of this, he sees his father as a rival and wants to get rid of him.
According to Freud the cause of Little Hans' phobia was related to his Oedipus complex. Little Hans was afraid of horses because the horse was a symbol for his father. He was afraid his father knew of his urges for his mother and would castrate him.
He pointed out that unlike most other children of the time, Hans was able to communicate fears and wishes that many children do not have the opportunity to express. He argued that as a result Hans had been able to resolve conflicts and anxieties. This supports Freud's talking therapies.
Bandura can be used as part of the Developmental approach and as part of upbringing Forensic
Bandura and the Bobo doll:
The aim of Bandura's study was to demonstrate that if children were passive witnesses to an aggressive display by an adult they would imitate this aggressive behaviour when given the opportunity.
Bandura, Ross and Ross tested 36 boys and 36 girls aged between 37 to 69 months.
The method was a laboratory experiment. The design of the experiment has three major conditions; the control group, the group exposed to the aggressive model, and the group exposed to the passive model.
Each experimental group, consisted of 24 children and were divided into 4 groups of 6.
This complicated design therefore has three independent variables. The condition the children were exposed to, the sex of the role model and the sex of the child.
The researchers attempted to reduce the problem of the participant extraneous variable of aggression by pre-testing the children for how aggressive they were. They did this by observing the children in the nursery and judged their aggressive behaviour on four 5-point rating scales. The experiment is therefore an example of a matched pairs design.
All of the children were tested individually
In stage one of the experiment children were brought to the experimental room by the experimenter, and the model was invited to come in and join in the game. One corner had a small table and chair, potato prints and picture stickers. After settling the child in its corner the adult model was escorted to the opposite corner of the room where there was a small table, chair, tinker-toy set, a mallet and a five foot inflatable Bobo doll. After the model was seated the experimenter left the experimental room.
In the non-aggressive condition, the model ignored Bobo and assembled the tinker-toys in a quiet, gentle manner.
In the aggressive condition the model began by assembling the tinker-toys, but after one minute turned to Bobo and was aggressive to the doll.
An example of physical aggression was "raised the Bobo doll and hit it on the head with a mallet",
An example of verbal aggression was, "Pow!" and "Sock him in the nose".
After ten minutes the experimenter entered and took the child to a new room which the child was told was another games room.
In stage two the child was subjected to 'mild aggression arousal'. The child was taken to a room with relatively attractive toys. As soon as the child started to play with the toys the experimenter told the child that these were the experimenter's very best toys and she had decided to reserve them for the other children.
Then the child was taken to the next room for stage three of the study where the child was told it could play with any of the toys in there with the experimenter.
In this room there was a variety of both non-aggressive (crayons, tea set) and aggressive toys (mallet, dart gun and Bobo doll). The child was kept in this room for 20 minutes during which time their behaviour was observed by judges through a one-way mirror. Observations were made at 5-second intervals.
The main findings were.
1. The children in the aggressive model condition made more aggressive responses than the children in the non-aggressive model condition
2. Boys made more aggressive responses than girls;
3. The boys in the aggressive model conditions showed more aggressive responses if the model was male than if the model was female;
4. The girls in the aggressive model conditions also showed more physical aggressive responses if the model was male but more verbal aggressive responses if the model was female.
Explanation for Findings
The findings support Bandura's Social Learning Theory. That is, children learn social behaviour such as aggression through the process of observation learning - through watching the behaviour of another person.
Central to Social Learning Theory is the identification of which types of models are more likely to be imitated.
Appropriateness of the model.
In the study it was found that aggressive male models were more likely to be imitated than aggressive female models. One probable reason for this is to do with sex roles: perhaps it is more acceptable in Western culture for men to be aggressive than women.