Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T18:19:14.166Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Effect of Videotape Feedback on the Self-Assessments of Psychiatric Patients

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 January 2018

R. D. Griffiths
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Institute of Psychiatry; now at the Department of Psychological Medicine, The Welsh National School of Medicine, Heath Park, Cardiff
J. Hinkson
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Institute of Psychiatry

Extract

The use of feedback techniques as therapeutic tools has increased quite considerably during the last decade (Berger, 1970). Techniques such as videotape and tape recorder playback have been used with a wide rage of patients, and to secure effects such as ‘overcoming resistance’, ‘evoking insight’, ‘increasing motivation for psychotherapy’ and ‘shocking alcoholics back to reality’. The general strategy has involved making a recording of the patient's behaviour, or a sample of therapeutic interaction; the recording is then played back to the participants and often used as a basis for discussion and further treatment. In spite of the enthusiasm about the value of these techniques, empirical and scientific evidence for their efficacy is almost entirely absent (Bailey and Sowder, 1970).

Type
Abstract
Copyright
Copyright © Royal College of Psychiatrists, 1973

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bailey, K. G., and Sowder, W. T. (1970). ‘Audiotape and videotape self-confrontation in psychotherapy.Psychological Bulletin, 74, 2, 127–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berger, M. M. (1970). Videotape Techniques in Psychiatric Training and Treatment. New York: Bruner/Mazel, Inc.Google Scholar
Watson, D., and Friend, R. (1969). ‘Measurement of social-evaluation anxiety.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 33, 4, 448–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.