Convention, Tradition, and the New Wave : Assessing Clinician Identity within Behavior Therapy

In the first wave, behaviorists questioned the conventional wisdom that inner experience was relevant to understanding human behavior. In the 1970s, cognitive-behavioral theories emphasized the importance of the cognitive element, not just the environment, in explaining and modifying behavior. The third wave is drawn from advances in basic and applied behavior analysis of language, Eastern mystical traditions, and less empirically oriented therapeutic approaches. Examples include Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT), Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT), Functional Analytic Psychotherapy (FAP), and Mindfulness Based Cognitive Therapy (IBCT). This study reports a survey of clinicians and non-clinicians who self-identify with second or third wave approaches, and a group of undergraduate psychology students intended to represent a layperson or folk psychological approach. Their preferences, in the context of 10 clinical vignettes, among 5 different therapeutic responses or interventions that included "ACT-like," "cognitive," and commonsense or "neutral" options were measured. Third wave-oriented respondents exhibited more consistency than others in their preference for interventions that match their self-identified theoretical orientation, however the author suggests that construction of the vignettes may have influenced this result.

Brief for Amici Curiae Scholars of the Constitutional Rights of Children in Support of Respondent Edith Windsor Addressing the Merits and Supporting Affirmance

This amicus brief filed by Scholars of the Constitutional Rights of Children turns the spotlight on children in same-sex families. The brief enumerates the ways Section 3 of DOMA impairs children's interests by denying federal recognition of their parents' marriages.

Brief of Amici Curiae Scholars of the Constitutional Rights of Children in Support of Petitioners in Obergefell v. Hodges

Supreme Court precedent establishes that the government may not punish children for matters beyond their control. Same-sex marriage bans and non-recognition laws (“marriage bans”) do precisely this. The states argue that marriage is good for children, yet marriage bans categorically exclude an entire class of children – children of same-sex couples – from the legal, economic and social benefits of marriage. This amicus brief recounts a powerful body of equal protection jurisprudence that prohibits punishing children to reflect moral disapproval of parental conduct or to incentivize adult behavior. We then explain that marriage bans punish children of same-sex couples because they: 1) foreclose their central legal route to family formation; 2) categorically void their existing legal parent-child relationships incident to out-of-state marriages; 3) deny them economic rights and benefits; and 4) inflict psychological and stigmatic harm. States cannot justify marriage bans as good for children and then exclude children of same-sex couples based on moral disapproval of their same-sex parents’ relationships or to incentivize opposite-sex couples to “procreate” within the bounds of marriage. To do so, severs the connection between legal burdens and individual responsibility and creates a permanent class or caste distinction.

Analysis of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Its Effects on Giant Panda Conservation

The giant panda, Ailuropoda melanoleuca is an endangered species that is protected under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Numerous factors have led to a decline in giant panda populations in China including habitat loss from human activity, poaching, panda inbreeding and a low reproductive rate. This capstone analyzes the effects of CITES and ESA as policies for the protection of panda populations and their habitat. CITES and ESA provide some protection for panda populations in the United States. However, these policies do not address panda habitat protection in China.