LORANDOS: Doctor, you would agree that mental health professionals do not know a lot of normal, well-adjusted people, correct?
Witness: You're speaking professionally?
LORANDOS: Yes.
Witness: Correct.
LORANDOS: Your waiting room is not normally cluttered with normal people who are well-adjusted, correct?
Witness: No, that is correct.
LORANDOS: Because when all is said and done, normal, well-adjusted, people don't need your services, correct?
Witness: Correct.
LORANDOS: In your practice, than, you are exposed to maladjustment and psychopathology much more often than to normal, well-adjusted people, correct?
Witness: Correct.
LORANDOS: Being normal and well-adjusted involves much more than merely an absence of maladjustment and psychopathology, correct?
Witness: Correct, that's right.
LORANDOS: Now, the Journal of Clinical and Consulting Psychology is a generally recognized and accepted peer review journal in your field, correct?
Witness: Yes.
LORANDOS: And a 1976 article by Garner and Smith published in the Journal of Clinical and Consulting Psychology entitled, An Experimental Videotape Evaluating Trainee Approaches to Clinical Judging, might be relevant to your opinions in this case, correct?
Witness: Could be, yes.
LORANDOS: Now concerning this research, I'd like to ask you this hypothetical question which involves five steps. 1) A group of mental health professionals and a group of undergraduate college students observed 1-minute video tape segments of ten different children. 2) 5 of the children were intellectually normal and 5 of the children were intellectually impaired, or developmentally delayed. 3) The observers were asked to estimate the level of intellectual functioning for each child. 4) Compared to the college students, the mental health professionals made less accurate estimates of the intellectual functioning of the normal children. 5) Compared to the college students, the professionals reported lower estimates of the intellectual functioning of the normal children. Now my question; this 1976 article demonstrates that because mental health professionals see cases of maladjustment and psychopathology so frequently, they underestimate the strengths of normal populations, correct?
Witness: Well that appears to be the case in that particular article.
LORANDOS: Thank you. You have not published anything in a peer review journal necessitating that we reconsider the 1976 findings of Garner and Smith, correct?
Witness: No.
LORANDOS: And you cannot cite any data published in a peer review journal necessitating that we reconsider the 1976 findings of Garner and Smith, correct?
Witness: Well, we're talking about the behaviors of other...
LORANDOS: Doctor, you cannot cite anything published in a peer review journal necessitating that we reevaluate the findings of Garner and ...
Witness: What you don't understand is there are many studies published in peer review journals that...
LORANDOS: Your honor, would you direct the witness to answer the question asked?
Judge: Witness, please pay careful attention to the question and answer that question.
LORANDOS: My question is this, thank you your honor, you cannot cite any data published in a peer review journal necessitating that we reconsider the findings of Garner and Smith in 1976, correct?
Witness: Correct.
LORANDOS: Without the availability of other data necessitating reconsideration of Garner and Smith's 1976 findings, their results, published in a generally recognized peer review journal, are regarded by your profession as generally accepted, correct?
Witness: Yes.
LORANDOS: In other words, your profession generally recognizes and accepts that mental health professionals underestimate the strengths of normal populations, correct?
Witness: That seems to be what that study demonstrated, yes.
LORANDOS: Now, you came to the conclusion that Mr. Smith exhibits anxiety, depression, and anger, correct?
Witness: Correct.
LORANDOS: In arriving at your conclusions, you asked yourself, as any responsible health professional would, why Mr. Smith is anxious, depressed, and angry, correct?
Witness: Correct.
LORANDOS: And you probably entertained various possibilities as to why Mr. Smith was anxious, depressed, and angry, correct?
Witness: Yes.
LORANDOS: Are you aware that asking yourself why some condition exists can mistakenly lead you to assuming that the condition does exist when in fact it does not?
Witness: No, not really.
LORANDOS: Well, the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology is a generally recognized peer review journal in your field, correct?
Witness: Yes.
LORANDOS: In a 1977 article, published by Ross and his colleagues, in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, titled, Social Explanation and Social Expectation: The Effects of Real and Hypothetical Explanations on Subjective Likelihood, might be relevant to your opinions in this case, correct?
Witness: It might be.
LORANDOS: Ok. Concerning this research I'd like to ask you this hypothetical question which involves 8 steps. If I lose you, stop me, I'll come back. 1) In this study, often called the "Shirley K Study," all the participants read the same story about a young woman named "Shirley K." 2) After reading the story, some of the participants were asked to explain why Shirley K might have committed suicide. 3) Another group of participants in the experiment were asked to explain why Shirley K might have made financial contributions to the Peace Corps. 4) Participants were told that the events they attempted to explain, suicide or financial contributions, were purely hypothetical events that may or may not have happened. 5) The participants who explained why Shirley K might have committed suicide were asked to rate the likelihood that she actually did commit suicide. 6) Compared to the other hypothetical events, these participants rated suicide as a much more likely event in Shirley K's life. 7) And the participants who explained why Shirley K might have made financial contributions to the Peace Corps were asked to rate the likelihood that she actually did make financial contributions to the Peace Corps. 8) And compared to the other hypothetical evidence, these participants rated contributions to the Peace Corps as much more likely in Shirley K's life. Now my question; you with me?
Witness: Yes, yes.
LORANDOS: Pursuant to the scientific study published by Ross and colleagues, my question is this: Attempting to explain why some event might have occurred leaves people more convinced that it did occur, correct?
Witness: That's what that study shows, yes.
LORANDOS: You have not published any data in a peer review journal necessitating that we reconsider the 1977 findings of Ross and his colleagues, correct?
Witness: No.
LORANDOS: And you cannot cite any data published in a peer review journal necessitating that we reconsider the 1977 findings of Ross and his colleagues, correct?
Witness: Again, that's correct, yes.
LORANDOS: In other words, your profession generally recognizes and accepts that attempting to explain why some event might have occurred leaves people more convinced that the event did occur, correct?
Witness: That can happen, yes.
LORANDOS: And you previously indicated asking yourself why Mr. Smith is anxious, depressed, and angry, correct?
Witness: Yes.
LORANDOS: Therefore, asking yourself why Mr. Smith might be anxious, depressed and angry could have mistakenly persuaded you that Mr. Smith is anxious, depressed, and angry, correct?
Witness: It appears that could happen, yes.
