Splitting data from theory on Black patient-White therapist relationship.

Abstract

ers consider other implications, but it is not right to demand that authors adopt the reviewers' views in order to secure publication of the manuscript. This is censorship.In the face of disagreements over the implications of the results of a research report, an editor can and should invite comments from opposing sides, to be published with the research report or subsequently. The American Psychologist maintains a lively Comment section for just this purpose. It is gratifying to see this opportunity used to represent alternative views and interpretations of data. REFERENCES Jensen, A. R. Educability and group differences.

National health insurance, psychotherapy, and the poor.

“…T h e authors are well aware that the formulations we have submitted to empirical arbitration are value sensitive-as much "heartpotheses" (S. I. Abramowitz, 1978) as hypotheses. Some colleagues who have been highly critical of the mental health establishment may be inclined to dismiss our findings by seizing on the unique democratization of our setting or on their disbelief in the disavowal of political motivation implicit in our "empirical approach."…”

Psychotherapeutic services for ethnic minorities: Two decades of research findings.

“…The two explanations are social-political in nature, with one involving the notion of"heart-pothesis" and the other having to do with the race of the investigator. Abramowitz (1978) stated that the weight of those data repudiates the contention that black patients receive an appreciably less than fair shake from white therapists . .…”

“…Parloff et al (1978) felt that the discrepancies may be due to investigators who rely on findings from different studies or who place differential weights on the significance of certain studies and outcome measures. The most controversial explanations of why investigators have differed in their interpretations have been proposed by Abramowitz (1978) and Abramowitz and Murray (1983). The two explanations are social-political in nature, with one involving the notion of “heart-pothesis” and the other having to do with the race of the investigator.…”

“…Abramowitz (1978) stated that the weight of those data repudiates the contention that black patients receive an appreciably less than fair shake from white therapists. … How is the persistence of formulations of white therapists’ countertransference reactions to black patients to be explained in the face of substantial empirical disconfirmation?…”

Sex Bias in Clinical Judgment: Later Empirical Returns

“…We introduced the notion of a "heartpothesis" in an attempt to understand the failure of research on racial effects in the clinic to influence formulations about the transaction between white therapist and black patient (Abramowitz, 1978). Whereas hypotheses accommodate to data, heartpotheses circumvent them by appealing to observers' personal experience.…”