Robbie J. Steward

Exploring Religion and Christianity as Points of Diversity Within Counseling Training Programs

The tension between psychology and religion originates with Freud’s, the Father of Psychology, atheism.1 Freud challenged established religion and perceived it as a socially constructed fiction, and religious beliefs as defense mechanisms.2 His “enlightened rationalism” pathologized and marginalized religious beliefs as childish allusions3 that were to be conceptualized as a system combining repression of drives, substitutive symbolic wish-fulfillment, and anxiety reducing behavior.4 Some authors have attributed Freud’s obvious disdain for religion to his unsatisfactory and fearful relationship with his mother,5 while others have highlighted his ambivalence about his Jewish ethnicity and his distant relationship with his father.6 Regardless of the etiology of his deprecation of religion, the resulting rift between psychology and religion has been maintained for almost a century and represents a long-standing tradition of psychology’s favoring Freud’s interpretation of religion as a “compulsion neurosis of mankind.”7 The results of this historical disconnection is twofold: a) a considerable number of psychologists view religious belief as a reflection of individuals’ neuroses, pathological guilt, and unhealthy dependency; b) some religious individuals avoid or approach psychological services, psychological literature, and the profession of psychology with skepticism or hesitation. Although many leaders, theoreticians, researchers, and practitioners alike, have adopted and embraced Freud’s understanding of the influence of religious beliefs on psychological well-being and emotional development, throughout the 20th Century (i.e., Albert Ellis’s emotional disturbance hypothesis),8 there have always been psychologists who did not (i.e., G. Stanley Hall, W. D. Fairbairn, H. Kohut, D.W. Winnicott, A. Roland, A. M. Rizulto, and M. H. Spero).9 However, in the last decade the historical anti-religious zeitgeist within psychology has been confronted with a seemingly stronger and more concerted voice. This more concerted voice that raises questions about the long-standing, anti-religious stance may have occurred for two primary reasons.

Recognizing Suicide Lethality Factors: Who is Competent?

ABSTRACT Suicide and the threat of suicide are important mental health issues for health service providers. Who a potential victim turns to for help initially and how capable that person is in recognizing the signs of potential suicide are critical issues not fully addressed by research. A study was conducted to examine the ability of various service providers to identify lethality factors. The Thirteen Questions on Successful Suicide and the Survey of Professional Experiences with Suicidal Clients were completed by physicians (N=22), doctoral level clinical or counseling psychologists (N=14), masters level counselors (N=33), masters level social workers (N=12), ministers (N=19), and lower division college students (N=27). The results revealed no significant differences in the number of correct responses by physicians, psychologists, and counselors, but all three groups scored significantly higher than all of the other groups. Social workers scored significantly higher than did ministers,sand ministers scored significantly higher than did college students. An analysis of data by years of experience showed that those with 5-10 years of experience scored the highest, while the more experienced subjects had a drastic drop in scores. Only about 50% of responding psychologists, social workers, and counselors had experienced specific training in recognizing and working with suicidal clients. Those who had the most exposure to suicide were the ones whc felt the strongest desire for additional information. (NB)